Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Interactive Gambling
Nerilee HingThe full report can be downloaded at: http://www.gamblingresearch.org.au/resources/6482d5fa-f068-41e5-921f-facd4f10365e/interactive+gambling.pdf This research study was commissioned by Gambling Research Australia to investigate how Australians are using interactive gambling services and the impact of interactive gambling on land‐based gambling and gambling‐related problems. A multi‐modal research study was conducted over three years including a nationally representative telephone survey (N=15,006), an online survey of gamblers (N=4,594), interviews with interactive gamblers (N=50) and with interactive gamblers seeking treatment (N=31), and collection of data from gambling help services. Previous Australian and international research has been largely limited by the use of small, non‐representative samples and measurement issues such as considering interactive gambling as a distinct form of gambling, rather than a mode of access, and failing to control for potentially confounding vari...
Related papers
The Prevalence and Determinants of Problem Gambling in Australia: Assessing the Impact of Interactive Gambling and New Technologies.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 2014
New technology is changing the nature of gambling with interactive modes of gambling becoming putatively associated with higher rates of problem gambling. This paper presents the first nationally representative data on the prevalence and correlates of problem gambling among Australian adults since 1999 and focuses on the impact of interactive gambling. A telephone survey of 15,006 adults was conducted. Of these, 2,010 gamblers (all interactive gamblers and a randomly selected subsample of those reporting land-based gambling in the past 12 months) also completed more detailed measures of problem gambling, substance use, psychological distress, and help-seeking. Problem gambling rates among interactive gamblers were 3 times higher than for noninteractive gamblers. However, problem and moderate risk gamblers were most likely to attribute problems to electronic gaming machines and land-based gambling, suggesting that although interactive forms of gambling are associated with substantial problems, interactive gamblers experience significant harms from land-based gambling. The findings demonstrate that problem gambling remains a significant public health issue that is changing in response to new technologies, and it is important to develop strategies that minimize harms among interactive gamblers.
National estimates of Australian gambling prevalence: findings from a dual-frame omnibus survey
Addiction, 2015
An investigation of internet gambling in Australia
2011
Executive Summary The objective of the present study was to explore the characteristics of Internet gamblers in comparison to non-Internet gamblers to determine whether individuals using this medium represent a distinct sub-group of gamblers. This study aimed to further the understanding of the impact of Internet gambling in Australia and provide results that may guide key stake holders, including policy makers, regulators, researchers, treatment providers, and industry groups, in forming an appropriate response to Internet gambling.
Prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in New South Wales
This report contains the results from the 2011 survey (N=10,000 adults) of the prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in New South Wales (NSW). The research was undertaken by Ogilvy Illumination on behalf of the NSW Government. The survey found that 65% of the NSW population had participated in at least one gambling activity in the last 12 months. The most popular gambling activity was lotteries (41%) followed by instant scratch tickets (28%), gaming machines (27%), horse-greyhound races (24%), Keno (14%), sports betting (8%), table games in a casino (7%) and casino or pokies-style games on the Internet (2%). Problem gambling was measured using the Problem Gambling Severity Index. The survey classified 0.8% of adults as problem gamblers, 2.9% as moderate risk gamblers and 8.4% as low risk gamblers. Problem gamblers were significantly more likely to be male, younger (18-24 years and 35-54 years), be single, be divorced/separated/widowed, unemployed, have low educational attainme...
Gambling and Problem Gambling in Victoria, Australia: Changes over 5 years
Journal of gambling studies / co-sponsored by the National Council on Problem Gambling and Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, 2015
Rates of gambling and gambling-related harm fluctuate over time, influenced by availability, adaptation and demographic change, among other things. Assessing change is compromised by methodological variation. The main aim of this paper is to assess change in gambling participation and problems in adult Victorians over a 5 year period. Data are from the Victorian Gambling Study (VGS) 2008-2012 (n = 15,000) and the 2003 Victorian Longitudinal Attitudes Survey (n = 8479). An additional aim was to determine the impact of methodological differences on prevalence estimates. Despite gambling availability increasing and more activities being included participation rates declined substantially. Decreases occurred across almost all demographic groups and gambling activities. When adjustments were made for methodological differences there were no significant changes in problem, moderate risk and low risk gambling. Males and people with lower education had higher rates in both surveys. In the l...
Northern Territory gambling prevalence survey 2005
Darwin: School for …, 2006
How structural changes in online gambling are shaping the contemporary experiences and behaviours of online gamblers: an interview study
BMC Public Health, 2022
Identifying problem gamblers in gambling venues ((2006 co-authored monograph (research report) for Australian national government. NOTE: whole monograph is here to download, 334 pages))
This co-authored monograph is a report for a study funded by the Australian national govt. (334 pages). It summarises and reviews published materials relating to problem gamblers within venues, and also presents empirical research on the nature of visible indicators of problem gamblers within venues. How can venue staff best identify visitors who are experiencing problems with their gambling? The researchers conducted observation studies in gambling venues, and also surveyed gamblers and venue staff. The literature review examined the link between identifying problem gamblers at venues and current provisions of responsibility in Australia and found that a public health approach was adopted by all states towards minimising harm associated with gambling. The empirical research carried out in Australia had three components for: (a) Surveys and consultation with industry staff and problem gambling counsellors; (b) A detailed survey study of regular gamblers and (c) Observational work at venues For the latter, the observational study examined the extent of behaviour visible in the venues, frequency of occurrence, sequencing and how they appeared in reality. Two observational studies were conducted in ACT and South Australia, with over 149 hours of observation conducted on hundreds of gamblers. For the surveys, over 120 venue/industry staff and 20 counsellors were involved for the first component; 700 regular gamblers surveyed for the second component.
Volume 3: 1761-1762: THE OPERATIONS OF THE ALLIED ARMY UNDER THE COMMAND OF PRINCE FERDINAND OF BRUNSWICK
Ken Trotman Publishing, 2024
Volume 3: 1761-1762 – 31 colour contemporary maps and 12 orders of battle. I came across the original copy of this book by Sir Charles Hotham (published in 1764) many years ago. At that time it cost a fortune and is undoubtedly even more valuable now. My desire to purchase it was two-fold. Firstly a fascination to have a monstrously rare early account of this vital phase of the Seven Years War that included of course the great battle of Minden, and secondly, the sheer beauty of the volume with its spectacular hand-coloured maps. This was one of the most intricate reconstructions that I have had the pleasure to create. Clearly the volume demanded a large format facsimile reprint. This is not just a simple crude scan like so many such volumes these days, but one that reflects the beauty of the original volume and addresses its major problem. To the rescue, as so often happens, came my very dear friend Stephen Summerfield. I know of no other person who can feel the shape of book’s narrative and who has a genius for breaking text into understandable sections to clarify the progress of events. This is hugely important, for the original volume was one vast body of unbroken text, without even chapters, contents page or index although full of valuable information. The book now reads like the campaign diary for the Army of Frederick of Brunswick, separated into three volumes. The chapters refer to months or battles with immensely detailed dated section headings. Each volume can be referred to and read with ease. Stephen is also a rather skilful scanner, although he will tell you between gritted teeth that it took him several goes through the book to get it to the state it is in this facsimile (that also included at least one page made largely illegible by an original ink stain – I challenge you to discover which page it is!). And what we know from previous works, Stephen is a genius at maps. This superb facsimile contains 106 contemporary hand-coloured maps and 63 orders of battle to make your journey through the story easier to follow, whilst retaining the joyousness of so many delightful coloured originals from the volume. This is just the stuff we want to do with our facsimiles. The price is not cheap because we wanted to provide you with a highest quality we could, to add ever greater value to the original. Stephen, fascinated with the story of the Hessen Cassell and Hanoverian troops’ progress in England, has added even more by setting the scene of the action. We do hope you are as delighted with all of this as we are.
Interactive Gambling
Commissioned by
Gambling Research Australia
Prepared by
Professor Nerilee Hing
Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University
Dr Sally Gainsbury
Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University
Professor Alex Blaszczynski
School of Psychology, The University of Sydney
Professor Robert Wood
Department of Sociology, University of Lethbridge
Professor Dan Lubman
Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Eastern Health
Alex Russell
Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University
Funded by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments
Published on behalf of Gambling Research Australia
by the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing
Department of Justice, Victoria, Australia
March 2014
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research team would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the following people and
organisations for their assistance with this study.
A number of individuals at the Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross
University provided research assistance:
•
•
•
•
•
Lorraine Cherney conducted the interviews and provided a comprehensive draft
analysis of these for Chapter Six.
Dr Zoe Wheeler and Georgia McClure conducted the interviews for Chapter Seven.
Margaret Tiyce provided a draft analysis of the interviews for Chapter Seven.
Arlita Willman conducted data cleaning for the National Online Survey.
Margaret Louise organised the recruitment and scheduling of many interview
participants, mailing out of participant vouchers and interview transcription.
Ethel Harris from the University of Sydney also provided research assistance in
administering the National Online Survey, and Dr Belinda Lloyd of Turning Point Alcohol and
Drug Centre, data cleaning for the National Telephone Survey.
Permission to use adapted versions of the survey instruments for the National Telephone
Survey and the National Online Survey was kindly granted by Professor Rob Williams and
Associate Professor Rob Wood, both of the University of Lethbridge.
Reark Research administered the National Telephone Survey and we acknowledge the
expert input of its Executive Chairman, the late Jim Reark, in survey and sampling design.
Data for Chapter Eight was kindly provided by several government departments and
agencies, as identified in Chapter Eight.
Assistance with recruiting research participants was provided by:
•
•
Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre through its gambling helplines and Gambling
Help Online.
Numerous organisations that hosted advertisements for the National Online Survey
on their websites. These are listed in Appendix C.
We would also like to thank the anonymous peer reviewers who made suggestions that
helped the research team to refine this research report.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................i
Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xiii
Abstract................................................................................................................................... xiv
Executive Summary................................................................................................................. xvi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study.............................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................1
1.2 Aims and Definitions.....................................................................................................1
1.3 Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................1
1.4 Statement of Requirements .........................................................................................2
1.5 Structure of the Report.................................................................................................2
Chapter Two: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 4
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................4
2.2 Australian Interactive Gambling Regulation.................................................................5
2.3 Estimated Prevalence of Interactive Gambling ............................................................8
2.4 Types of Games.............................................................................................................9
2.4.1 Lottery ....................................................................................................................9
2.4.2 Race Wagering and Sports Betting.......................................................................10
2.4.3 Poker.....................................................................................................................13
2.4.4 Casino Games and Pokies.....................................................................................16
2.5 Interactive Gambling Preferences ..............................................................................17
2.5.1 Game Play Preferences ........................................................................................17
2.5.2 Payment Methods ................................................................................................19
2.5.3 Expenditure ..........................................................................................................20
2.6 Medium Preferences of Interactive Gamblers ...........................................................23
2.6.1 Mobile Gambling ..................................................................................................23
2.6.2 Interactive Television ...........................................................................................25
2.6.3 Gaming Consoles ..................................................................................................26
2.6.4 Desktop, Laptop and Tablet Computers ..............................................................26
2.7 Motivations for Interactive Gambling ........................................................................27
2.7.1 Advantages of Interactive Gambling....................................................................28
2.7.2 Disadvantages of Interactive Gambling ...............................................................29
2.8 Transition from Terrestrial Gambling to Interactive Gambling..................................31
2.9 Demographic Characteristics of Interactive Gamblers...............................................33
2.9.1 Gender..................................................................................................................33
2.9.2 Age........................................................................................................................34
ii
2.9.3 Education, Employment and Marital Status ........................................................34
2.9.4 Youth ....................................................................................................................35
2.10 Contribution of Interactive Mediums to Problem Gambling .....................................38
2.10.1 Prevalence of Interactive Problem Gambling ....................................................40
2.10.2 Characteristics of Interactive Problem Gamblers ..............................................42
2.10.3 Relationship Between Interactive Gambling and Problem Gambling ...............44
2.11 Help‐Seeking Behaviours of Interactive Gamblers.....................................................46
2.12 Chapter Summary.......................................................................................................47
Chapter Three: Research Methods ................................................................................... 48
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................48
3.2 Methodology for the National Telephone Survey......................................................48
3.2.1 Procedure .............................................................................................................48
3.2.2 Response Rate ......................................................................................................49
3.2.3 Definition of Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers .....................................50
3.2.4 Telephone Survey Instrument..............................................................................50
3.2.5 Selected Sample Process......................................................................................52
3.2.6 Stratification and Data Weighting........................................................................54
3.2.7 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................55
3.3 Methodology for the National Online Survey ............................................................55
3.3.1 Recruitment Methods ..........................................................................................56
3.3.2 Procedure .............................................................................................................57
3.3.3 Definition of Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers .....................................58
3.3.4 Online Survey Instrument ....................................................................................58
3.3.5 Respondent Characteristics..................................................................................61
3.3.6 Data Weighting.....................................................................................................62
3.3.7 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................69
3.4 Methodology for the Interviews with Interactive Gamblers from the General
Population ..................................................................................................................70
3.4.1 Recruitment and Sampling...................................................................................70
3.4.2 Participant Characteristics ...................................................................................71
3.4.3 Procedure .............................................................................................................73
3.4.4 Interview Questions .............................................................................................73
3.4.5 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................73
3.5 Methodology for the Interviews with Treatment‐Seeking Interactive Gamblers......73
3.5.1 Recruitment and Sampling...................................................................................73
3.5.2 Participant Characteristics ...................................................................................74
3.5.3 Procedure .............................................................................................................76
3.5.4 Interview Questions .............................................................................................76
3.5.5 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................76
3.6 Methodology for Data Collection from Gambling Treatment Agencies ....................76
3.7 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................77
iii
Chapter Four: Results from the National Telephone Survey ............................................. 79
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................79
4.2 Prevalence of Gambling, Problem Gambling and Interactive Gambling in Australia.80
4.2.1 Prevalence of Gambling in Australia ....................................................................80
4.2.2 Prevalence of Problem Gambling in Australia .....................................................81
4.2.3 Prevalence of Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gambling in Australia ................83
4.3 Demographic Comparisons of Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ................84
4.4 Gambling Behaviour of Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers...........................87
4.4.1 Gambling Participation Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers .....87
4.4.2 Gambling Frequency Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers.........88
4.4.3 Gambling Expenditure Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ......89
4.5 Non‐Monetary Social Casino Game Play on the Internet Amongst Interactive and
Non‐Interactive Gamblers ..........................................................................................90
4.6 Interactive Gambling Behaviour .................................................................................91
4.7 Problem Gambling Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ..................93
4.7.1 Prevalence of Problem Gambling Amongst Interactive and
Non‐Interactive Gamblers ....................................................................................93
4.7.2 Gambling Form Contributing Most to Gambling Problems Amongst Interactive
and Non‐Interactive Gamblers .............................................................................95
4.7.3 Gambling Medium Contributing Most to Gambling Problems Amongst
Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers...........................................................96
4.7.4 Contribution of the Interactive Medium to Gambling Problems.........................97
4.8 Gambling Help‐Seeking Behaviour Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive
Gamblers ....................................................................................................................98
4.9 Perceived Benefit and Harm from Gambling Amongst Interactive and
Non‐Interactive Gamblers ........................................................................................101
4.10 Substance Use and Mental Health of Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ..101
4.11 Characteristics Statistically Differentiating Interactive Gamblers from
Non‐Interactive Gamblers ........................................................................................104
4.12 Characteristics Statistically Predicting Level of Problem Gambling Severity
Amongst Interactive Gamblers.................................................................................107
4.13 Chapter Summary.....................................................................................................108
Chapter Five: Results from the National Online Survey .................................................. 110
5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................110
5.2 Prevalence of Gambling Amongst Gamblers in the Weighted National Online Survey
Sample ......................................................................................................................111
5.3 Demographic Comparisons of Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ..............112
5.4 Gambling Behaviour of Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers.........................115
5.4.1 Gambling Participation Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ...115
5.4.2 Gambling Frequency Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers.......116
iv
5.4.3 Gambling Expenditure Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ....119
5.5 Non‐Monetary Social Casino Game Play on the Internet Amongst Interactive
and Non‐Interactive Gamblers .................................................................................120
5.6 Interactive Gambling Behaviour ...............................................................................122
5.6.1 Commencement of Interactive Gambling..........................................................122
5.6.2 Proportion of Gambling Through Interactive Media .........................................123
5.6.3 Preferences for Interactive Gambling: Mode, Location and Time.....................124
5.6.4 Payment Methods, Accounts and Impacts of Electronic Payments for
Interactive Gambling ..........................................................................................125
5.6.5 Factors Influencing Choice of Websites for Interactive Gambling.....................127
5.6.6 Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of Interactive Gambling..................128
5.6.7 Reported Sleeping and Eating Disruptions Due to Interactive Gambling..........129
5.6.8 Main Casino Table Games and Games of Skill Played on the Internet ..............129
5.6.9 Length of Interactive Gambling Sessions ...........................................................130
5.7 Problem Gambling Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ................130
5.8 Gambling Help‐Seeking Behaviour Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive
Gamblers ..................................................................................................................135
5.9 Substance Use, Mental Health and Harms from Gambling Amongst Interactive
and Non‐Interactive Gamblers .................................................................................137
5.9.1 Use of Alcohol and Drugs While Gambling Amongst Interactive and
Non‐Interactive Gamblers ..................................................................................137
5.9.2 Psychological Distress and Personal Problems from Gambling Amongst
Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers.........................................................138
5.9.3 Interpersonal Problems Due to Gambling Amongst Interactive and
Non‐Interactive Gamblers ..................................................................................139
5.9.4 Work or Study Problems Due to Gambling Amongst Interactive and
Non‐Interactive Gamblers ..................................................................................140
5.9.5 Financial Problems Due to Gambling Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive
Gamblers ............................................................................................................141
5.10 Attitudes to Gambling, Opinions about Promotion and Legality of Interactive
Gambling, and Gambling Fallacies Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive
Gamblers ..................................................................................................................143
5.10.1 Perceived Benefit and Harm from Gambling Amongst Interactive and Non‐
Interactive Gamblers ..........................................................................................143
5.10.2 Opinions About the Promotion of Interactive Gambling Amongst Interactive
and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ...........................................................................143
5.10.3 Perceived Legality of Interactive Gambling Amongst Interactive and Non‐
Interactive Gamblers ..........................................................................................145
5.10.4 Gambling Fallacies Amongst Interactive and Non‐Interactive Gamblers ..........146
5.11 Characteristics Statistically Differentiating Interactive Gamblers from
Non‐Interactive Gamblers ........................................................................................147
5.12 Characteristics Statistically Predicting Level of Problem Gambling Severity
Amongst Interactive Gamblers.................................................................................150
v
5.13 Characteristics Statistically Differentiating Interactive Moderate Risk and Problem
Gamblers from Non‐Interactive Moderate Risk and Problem Gamblers ................151
5.14 Chapter Summary.....................................................................................................152
Chapter Six: Interviews With Interactive Gamblers Recruited from the General
Population...................................................................................................................... 155
6.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................155
6.2 Transition from Land‐Based Gambling to Interactive Gambling..............................155
6.2.1 History of Gambling............................................................................................156
6.2.2 Participation in Interactive Gambling ................................................................158
6.3 Media Preferences for Interactive Gambling ...........................................................163
6.3.1 Preferred Devices for interactive Gambling.......................................................163
6.3.2 Factors That Determine Choice of Device..........................................................164
6.4 Motivations for Interactive Gambling ......................................................................167
6.4.1 Convenience and Ease of Access........................................................................167
6.4.2 Saves Time/Speed ..............................................................................................168
6.4.3 Better Odds/More Gambling Options/More Information .................................169
6.4.4 Not Being Surrounded by Other Gamblers ........................................................169
6.4.5 Keeps the Event Interesting ...............................................................................170
6.4.6 Social Vs Anti‐Social Activity...............................................................................171
6.4.7 Prohibited From Gambling at a Land‐Based Casino...........................................171
6.4.8 Ability for Gaming Venue Employees to Copy Bets ...........................................172
6.5 Advertisements and Promotions for Interactive Gambling .....................................172
6.5.1 Positive Opinions of Advertising and Promotions..............................................173
6.5.2 Negative Opinions of Advertising and Promotions............................................174
6.6 Features of Interactive Gambling that Contribute To Gambling Problems .............179
6.6.1 Digital Money .....................................................................................................179
6.6.2 Lower Perceived ‘Value’ of Interactive Winnings ..............................................180
6.6.3 Credit Gambling..................................................................................................180
6.6.4 Easy Accessibility ................................................................................................183
6.6.5 Absence of Scrutiny............................................................................................184
6.6.6 Poor Identification Verification ..........................................................................185
6.6.7 Inducements to Gamble.....................................................................................185
6.6.8 Influence of Alcohol ...........................................................................................185
6.6.9 Control Strategies Used......................................................................................186
6.7 Responsible Gambling Measures for Interactive Gambling .....................................188
6.7.1 Responsible Gambling Requirements in the Interactive vs Land‐based
Environment .......................................................................................................189
6.7.2 Recommended Responsible Gambling Measures for Interactive Gambling .....189
6.8 Help‐Seeking Behaviour of Interactive Gamblers ....................................................191
6.9 Overall Opinions of Interactive Gambling ................................................................192
6.9.1 Positive Opinions................................................................................................192
6.9.2 Negative Opinions ..............................................................................................194
vi
6.9.3 Mixed Opinions ..................................................................................................195
6.9.3 Best Aspects of Interactive Gambling ................................................................196
6.9.4 Worst Aspects of Interactive Gambling .............................................................196
6.10 Chapter Summary.....................................................................................................197
Chapter Seven: Interviews With Treatment‐seeking Interactive Gamblers ..................... 199
7.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................199
7.2 Transition from Land‐Based Gambling to Interactive Gambling..............................199
7.2.1 History of Gambling............................................................................................199
7.2.2 Participation in Interactive Gambling ................................................................203
7.3 Media Preferences for Interactive Gambling ...........................................................206
7.3.1 Preferred Devices for Interactive Gambling.......................................................206
7.3.2 Factors that Determine Choice of Device ..........................................................208
7.4 Motivations for Interactive Gambling ......................................................................209
7.4.1 Convenience and Ease of Access........................................................................209
7.4.2 Better Odds/More Gambling Options/More Information .................................210
7.4.3 Not Being Surrounded by Other Gamblers ........................................................211
7.4.4 Privacy ................................................................................................................211
7.5 Advertisements and Promotions..............................................................................212
7.5.1 Positive Opinions of Advertising and Promotions..............................................212
7.5.2 Negative Opinions of Advertising and Promotions............................................213
7.6 Features of Interactive Gambling that Contribute To Gambling Problems .............217
7.6.1 Credit Gambling..................................................................................................217
7.6.2 Digital Money .....................................................................................................218
7.6.3 Lower Perceived ‘Value’ of Online Winnings .....................................................219
7.6.4 Easy Accessibility ................................................................................................219
7.6.5 Wide Range of Gambling Options ......................................................................220
7.6.6 Inducements to Gamble.....................................................................................220
7.6.7 Speed and Lack of Limits ....................................................................................221
7.6.8 Absence of Scrutiny............................................................................................221
7.6.9 Loss of Reality.....................................................................................................222
7.6.10 Influence of Alcohol .........................................................................................222
7.6.11 Control Strategies Used....................................................................................223
7.7 Responsible Gambling Measures .............................................................................225
7.7.1 Responsible Gambling Requirements in the Interactive vs Land‐based
Environment .......................................................................................................226
7.7.2 Recommended Responsible Gambling Measures for Interactive Gambling .....227
7.8 Help‐Seeking Behaviour of Interactive Gamblers ....................................................231
7.8.1 Help Used to Manage Gambling Problems ........................................................231
7.8.2 Challenges in Seeking Help for Interactive Gambling Problems........................235
7.8.3 The Most Effective Treatment For Interactive Gambling Problems ..................236
7.9 Overall Opinions of Interactive Gambling ................................................................238
7.9.1 Positive Opinions................................................................................................239
vii
7.9.2 Negative Opinions ..............................................................................................239
7.9.3 Mixed Opinions ..................................................................................................240
7.9.4 Best Aspects of Interactive Gambling ................................................................241
7.9.5 Worst Aspects of Interactive Gambling .............................................................242
7.10 Chapter Summary.....................................................................................................244
Chapter Eight: Data from Gambling Treatment Agencies................................................ 246
8.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................246
8.2 New South Wales......................................................................................................246
8.3 Queensland...............................................................................................................249
8.4 Victoria......................................................................................................................251
8.5 South Australia..........................................................................................................254
8.6 Tasmania...................................................................................................................255
8.7 Western Australia .....................................................................................................256
8.8 Australian Capital Territory ......................................................................................256
8.9 Northern Territory ....................................................................................................257
8.10 Gambling Help Online ..............................................................................................257
8.11 Limitations ................................................................................................................259
8.12 Chapter Summary.....................................................................................................259
Chapter Nine: Discussion ................................................................................................ 261
9.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................261
9.2 Motivations for Interactive Gambling ......................................................................261
9.2.1 Advantages of Interactive Gambling..................................................................261
9.2.2 Disadvantages of Interactive Gambling .............................................................263
9.3 Characteristics of Interactive Gamblers ...................................................................264
9.3.1 Gender................................................................................................................264
9.3.2 Age......................................................................................................................264
9.3.3 Education and Employment ...............................................................................265
9.3.4 Marital Status and Living Arrangements............................................................265
9.4 Attitudes and Knowledge About Gambling, Promotions, and the Legality of
Interactive Gambling ................................................................................................266
9.4.1 Attitudes About Gambling..................................................................................266
9.4.2 Advertisements and Promotions for Online Gambling......................................267
9.4.3 Knowledge of Interactive Gambling Regulations...............................................268
9.4.4 Erroneous Beliefs About Gambling ....................................................................269
9.5 Gambling Behaviours of Interactive Gamblers.........................................................269
9.5.1 Overall Gambling Participation ..........................................................................269
9.5.2 Gambling Activities.............................................................................................270
9.5.3 Gambling Frequency ..........................................................................................271
9.5.4 Gambling Expenditure........................................................................................271
9.5.5 Professional Gambling........................................................................................272
9.6 Game Play Preferences of Interactive Gamblers......................................................273
viii
9.6.1 Types of Gambling Sites Used ............................................................................273
9.6.2 Preferred Times and Locality..............................................................................274
9.6.3 Payment Methods and Accounts .......................................................................274
9.7 Medium Preferences of Interactive Gamblers .........................................................275
9.7.1 Interactive Modes Used for Each Gambling Activity .........................................276
9.7.2 Interactive Media ...............................................................................................277
9.8 Transition from Terrestrial Gambling to Interactive Gambling................................278
9.9 Current Prevalence of Interactive Gambling ............................................................278
9.10 Current Prevalence of Problem Gambling Among Interactive Gamblers ................280
9.10.1 Gambling Forms Contributing Most to Gambling Problems............................281
9.11 Comorbid Mental Health and Substance Use ..........................................................282
9.12 Contribution of Internet Gambling to Problem Gambling in Interactive Gamblers 284
9.12.1 Predictors of Interactive Problem Gamblers ...................................................285
9.12.2 Characteristics of Interactive Gambling that Contribute to Problems ............287
9.13 Help‐seeking and Responsible Gambling .................................................................291
9.13.1 Help‐Seeking Behaviours of Interactive Gamblers ..........................................291
9.13.2 Control Strategies Used for Interactive Gambling ...........................................293
9.13.3 Responsible Gambling Measures .....................................................................294
9.14 Limitations ................................................................................................................295
9.15 Chapter Summary.....................................................................................................298
References...................................................................................................................... 299
Appendices..................................................................................................................... 313
Appendix A: National Telephone Survey Instrument ............................................................314
Appendix B: Calculations for Age x Gender Weighting for the National Telephone
Survey................................................................................................................335
Appendix C: Organisations That Hosted Website Advertisements for the National Online
Survey June – December 2012..........................................................................337
Appendix D: Examples of Recruitment Notices for the National Online Survey...................339
Appendix E: National Online Survey Instrument ...................................................................347
Appendix F: Interview Schedule for Interactive Gamblers....................................................392
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1:
Table 3.2:
Table 3.3:
Table 3.4:
Table 3.5:
Table 3.6:
Table 3.7:
Table 3.8:
Table 3.9:
Table 3.10:
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:
Table 4.6:
Table 4.7:
Table 4.8:
Table 4.9:
Table 4.10:
Table 4.11:
Table 4.12:
Table 4.13:
Response profile of the National Representative Telephone Survey..............................49
Percentage of the mainland Australian population from each state or
territory according to the 2006 and 2011 Censuses and the National Telephone
Survey sample..................................................................................................................54
Where respondents to the National Online Survey heard about the survey
(unweighted, multiple responses possible, N = 4,594)...................................................57
Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 4,594) .................................................64
Unweighted demographic data from gamblers from the Telephone and
Online surveys .................................................................................................................66
Weighted demographic data from gamblers from the Telephone and Online
surveys .............................................................................................................................68
Main interactive gambling activity and PGSI status of the 50 interactive gamblers
recruited from the general population............................................................................71
Main characteristics of 50 interactive gamblers recruited from the general
population........................................................................................................................72
Main characteristics of the 31 treatment seeking interviewees .....................................75
Sample Size and Data Collected in Each Empirical Research Stage.................................78
Past year prevalence of gambling amongst the Australian adult population in
2010/2011 by State/Territory. Total weighted N = 15,007 .............................................80
Past year prevalence of different forms of gambling amongst the Australian adult
population in 2010/2011 .................................................................................................81
Past year prevalence of problem gambling in the Australian adult population in
2010/2011........................................................................................................................82
Percentage of gamblers endorsing each PGSI item amongst the Australian adult
population in 2010/2011 (weighted N = 2,010) ..............................................................83
Demographic comparisons of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
(weighted N = 2,010) ......................................................................................................85
Past year prevalence of different forms of gambling for interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers (N = 2,010)..............................................................................88
Annual frequency of gambling activities among interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers ..........................................................................................................................89
Net monthly gambling expenditure of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers..........90
Proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers who played social casino
games online without any money (weighted N = 2,010).................................................91
Commencement, medium, preferences and disruptions relating to interactive
gambling (N = 849)...........................................................................................................92
Past year prevalence of problem gambling among interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers in 2010/2011 excluding non‐regular bingo and lottery gamblers
(N = 1,767) ......................................................................................................................93
Responses to PGSI questions by interactive and non‐interactive gamblers excluding
non‐regular bingo and lottery gamblers (weighted N = 1,768).......................................94
Gambling form that has contributed most to gambling problems among
interactive and non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers (1st response
only, weighted N = 142)...................................................................................................96
x
Table 4.14: Gambling medium that has contributed most to gambling problems among
interactive and non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers
(1st response only, weighted N = 136) ............................................................................97
Table 4.15: Influence of interactive gambling on problem gambling amongst moderate risk
and problem interactive gamblers ..................................................................................98
Table 4.16: Help‐seeking behaviour amongst moderate risk and problem interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers (weighted N = 153) ......................................................................100
Table 4.17: Perceived benefit and harm of gambling to society for interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers (N = 1,924)............................................................................101
Table 4.18: Substance use and mental health comparison between interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers (weighted N = 1,980)............................................................102
Table 4.19: Frequency of using alcohol and tobacco while engaging in interactive and non‐
interactive gambling in the last 12 months (weighted N = 1,980) ................................103
Table 4.20: Logistic regression of characteristics differentiating Australian interactive gamblers
from non‐interactive gamblers......................................................................................106
Table 4.21: Poisson regression of characteristics predicting higher problem gambling in
interactive gamblers (N = 374) ......................................................................................108
Table 5.1: Past year prevalence of different forms of gambling amongst Australian
gamblers in 2012/3 (weighted N = 4,594) .....................................................................111
Table 5.2: Demographic comparison of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers.......................112
Table 5.3: Past year participation in different forms of gambling for interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers (N = 4,594) ...................................................................................116
Table 5.4: Frequency of gambling on each form amongst interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers ........................................................................................................................117
Table 5.5: Proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers who report being behind,
ahead or breaking even for each form of gambling ......................................................119
Table 5.6: Proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers who have played gambling
activities on the Internet without any money (weighted N = 4,594) ............................121
Table 5.7: Social casino game use (up to three responses allowed, weighted N = 1,473).............121
Table 5.8: Year respondents commenced interactive gambling (weighted N = 572) ....................122
Table 5.9: Factors that had the greatest influence on the decision to start gambling via an
interactive medium (up to three responses allowed, weighted N = 572).....................123
Table 5.10: Proportion of respondents agreeing with statements relating to online and offline
gambling patterns (weighted N = 572) ..........................................................................123
Table 5.11: Proportion of gambling done online amongst those who gamble online for each
form ...............................................................................................................................124
Table 5.12: Proportion of respondents who prefer interactive gambling to land‐based or
telephone gambling (weighted N = 572) .......................................................................124
Table 5.13: Preferred mode for accessing the Internet for gambling (weighted N = 572) ..............125
Table 5.14: Preferred location for interactive gambling (weighted N = 572) ..................................125
Table 5.15: Preferred time of day for interactive gambling (weighted N = 572) .............................125
Table 5.16: Usual payment method for online gambling (weighted N = 572) .................................126
Table 5.17: Reported impact of using credit card or electronic money compared to cash for
interactive gambling (weighted N = 572) ......................................................................126
Table 5.18: Number of separate interactive gambling accounts (weighted N = 572) .....................126
xi
Table 5.19: Factors that influence the decision of Australian interactive gamblers to gamble
at one Internet site over another (up to three responses allowed,
weighted N = 572).......................................................................................................... 127
Table 5.20: Preferences for domestic vs offshore gambling websites (weighted N = 572) .............127
Table 5.21: Main advantages of interactive gambling over land‐based gambling, as reported
by Australian interactive gamblers (up to three responses allowed,
weighted N = 572).......................................................................................................... 128
Table 5.22: Main disadvantages of interactive gambling over land‐based gambling, as reported
by Australian interactive gamblers (up to three responses allowed, weighted
N = 572)..........................................................................................................................128
Table 5.23: Reported disruption to sleeping and eating patterns due to interactive gambling
(up to three responses allowed, weighted N = 572) ....................................................129
Table 5.24: Casino table games, not including poker, played on the Internet (up to three
responses allowed, weighted N = 182)..........................................................................129
Table 5.25: Games of skill played on the Internet (up to three responses allowed, weighted
N = 102)..........................................................................................................................130
Table 5.26 Past year prevalence of problem gambling among interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers in 2012/2013 (weighted N = 4,595) ...............................................................131
Table 5.27: Responses to the Problem Gambling Severity Index questions by interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers (weighted N = 4,594)............................................................131
Table 5.28: Gambling form that has contributed most to gambling problems among Australian
interactive and non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers (first
response only, weighted N = 1,668) ..............................................................................133
Table 5.29 Gambling medium that has contributed most to gambling problems among
Australian interactive and non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers
(first response only, weighted N = 1,366).....................................................................134
Table 5.30: Influence of interactive gambling on problem gambling amongst moderate risk
and problem interactive gamblers ................................................................................135
Table 5.31: Help‐seeking behaviour amongst moderate risk and problem interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers (weighted N = 1,666) ...................................................................136
Table 5.32: Frequency of using alcohol and recreational drug use while engaging in gambling
in the last 12 months (weighted N = 4,594) ..................................................................137
Table 5.33: Personal problems due to gambling in the last 12 months (N = 4,594) ........................139
Table 5.34: Interpersonal problems from gambling in the last 12 months (N = 4,594)...................140
Table 5.35: Work and study problems due to gambling in the last 12 months (N = 4,594) ............141
Table 5.36: Financial problems due to gambling in the last 12 months (N = 4,594)........................142
Table 5.37: Perceived benefit and harm of gambling to society amongst interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers (N = 4,594) ...................................................................................143
Table 5.38: Perceived impact on their gambling of viewing promotions for online gambling
amongst interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (N = 4,594)....................................144
Table 5.39: Opinions about where promotions for online gambling should be allowed amongst
interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (multiple response, N = 4,594)....................144
Table 5.40: Knowledge about which forms of interactive gambling are legal in Australia
amongst interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (multiple response, N = 4,594).....145
Table 5.41: Opinions about the impact on their gambling of legalising all forms of interactive
gambling amongst interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (N = 4,594)....................146
xii
Table 5.42: Logistic regression of characteristics differentiating Australian interactive
gamblers from non‐interactive gamblers ......................................................................149
Table 5.43: Negative binomial regression of characteristics predicting higher problem
gambling in Australian interactive gamblers .................................................................150
Table 5.44: Logistic regression of characteristics differentiating at‐risk and problem
interactive gamblers from at‐risk and problem non‐interactive gamblers ...................152
Table 8.1: Number and percentage of problem gambler clients of NSW Gambling Help
Services reporting Internet as their preferred means of accessing gambling,
2007‐08 to 2011‐12 .......................................................................................................247
Table 8.2: Sex of clients of NSW Gambling Help Services who reported Internet as their
preferred means of accessing gambling, 2007‐08 to 2011‐12 ......................................247
Table 8.3: Age group of clients of NSW Gambling Help Services who reported Internet
as their preferred means of accessing gambling, 2007‐08 to 2011‐12 .........................247
Table 8.4: Principal gambling activity of clients of NSW Gambling Help Services who reported
Internet as their preferred means of accessing gambling, 2007‐08 to 2011‐12 ...........248
Table 8.5: Sex, age group, marital status and principal gambling activity of NSW gambling
helpline callers whose preferred means of accessing gambling was the Internet,
2011‐12 to 2012‐13 .......................................................................................................249
Table 8.6: Sex, age group and problematic gambling mode of clients of QLD gambling help
services who reported Internet gambling as a problematic form of gambling for
them, 2012 (N = 21) .......................................................................................................250
Table 8.7: Sex and age group of QLD gambling helpline callers who called about an Internet
gambling problem, 2012 (N = 31) ..................................................................................251
Table 8.8: Sex, age group, marital status and primary gambling activity of clients of Victorian
gambling help services who reported Internet/online as their primary gambling
venue, 2012‐13 (N = 155) ..............................................................................................253
Table 8.9: Sex, age group, primary gambling venue and gambling mode of Victorian
gambling helpline callers whose main gambling type was Internet gambling,
2012‐13 (N = 78) ............................................................................................................254
Table 8.10: Sex, age group and employment status of new clients of Tasmanian gambling
help services who reported Internet gambling as a problematic form of gambling for
them, 2012‐13 (N = 9)....................................................................................................255
Table 8.11: Number and percentage of problem gambler clients of ACT Gambling Counselling
and Support Service who reported some form of Internet gambling as their
primary or most problematic form of gambling, 2011‐12 to 2012‐13 ..........................257
Table 8.12: Method of gambling, sex, age group and type of gambling of Gambling Help
Online clients who presented for help for themselves, 2012‐13 (N = 645) ..................258
Table 8.13: Problem gambler clients of gambling treatment agencies who reported the
Internet as their preferred/primary/problematic means or method of accessing
gambling as a % of all problem gambler clients ............................................................260
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Unweighted number of respondents who answered each section of the National
Telephone Survey ...........................................................................................................53
xiii
ABSTRACT
This research study was commissioned by Gambling Research Australia to investigate how
Australians are using interactive gambling services and the impact of interactive gambling
on land‐based gambling and gambling‐related problems. A multi‐modal research study was
conducted over three years including a nationally representative telephone survey
(N=15,006), an online survey of gamblers (N=4,594), interviews with interactive gamblers
(N=50) and with interactive gamblers seeking treatment (N=31), and collection of data from
gambling help services. Previous Australian and international research has been largely
limited by the use of small, non‐representative samples and measurement issues such as
considering interactive gambling as a distinct form of gambling, rather than a mode of
access, and failing to control for potentially confounding variables, such as overall gambling
involvement. The current study defined an interactive gambler as someone who had
gambled on at least one interactive form in the past year, not excluding other gambling
modes.
Taken together, the results suggest that interactive gamblers are most likely to be male and
younger than land‐based gamblers, suggesting that this mode may continue to grow in
popularity among the next generation of gamblers. Interactive gamblers have more positive
views of gambling than land‐based gamblers and were engaged in a significantly greater
number of gambling activities. In particular, interactive gamblers were more likely to gamble
on sports, races and poker, as compared to non‐interactive gamblers, who were most likely
to gamble on electronic gaming machines (EGMs). The most popular online activities were
interactive sports and race wagering, and interactive gamblers conducted the majority of
their betting online.
Overall, convenience and ease of access is driving use of interactive gambling, followed by
more competitive products and pricing as well as the comfort of gambling from home.
Despite these advantages, substantial minorities of interactive gamblers view this mode as
too convenient and have concerns about the security and integrity of interactive sites.
Gamblers were most likely to choose an interactive operator based on competitive price
and promotions, as well as reputation and products offered and while most preferred
domestically regulated sites, at least one‐third of interactive gamblers were not concerned
about gambling with offshore providers. Over three‐quarters of interactive gamblers
reported using interactive modes for at least half of their gambling and approximately one‐
fifth reported gambling either entirely online or mostly offline, indicating that this mode is
used in various ways by gamblers depending on their preferences.
The national telephone survey indicated that the past year prevalence of adult gambling
participation in Australia was 64% and 8% of adults engaged in at least one form of
interactive gambling. The prevalence of problem gambling in the adult population was 0.6%
(or 1% of gamblers), although 18.6% of gamblers reported experiencing at least some
negative consequences of gambling (12% of the adult population). Interactive gamblers
xiv
appeared to be at greater risk of experiencing some problems; however, the study did not
allow causality to be determined and it is likely that the greater overall gambling
involvement and intensity of interactive gamblers plays an important role in the experience
of harms. Differences were found in the forms of gambling related to problems, with
interactive gamblers most likely to report problems related to race wagering, EGMs and
sports betting, while non‐interactive gambling problems appeared mostly related to EGMs.
Risk factors for greater problem gambling severity among interactive gamblers included
being male, younger, and a non‐English speaker at home as well as greater gambling
participation and betting on sports, races and poker. The specific features of interactive
gambling which appear to have the greatest negative impact included its constant
availability and convenience (combined with isolation, boredom and distress), use of
electronic funds, online accounts and gambling with credit, which reduced the salience of
losses and wins, ability to play in private and hide betting, and advertisements and
promotions, including inducements to gamble.
As participation in interactive gambling appears to be relatively recent and increasing, it is
possible that related problems might increase over time with increased participation in this
activity. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that interactive
gambling is causing higher levels of gambling problems. Around half of the moderate risk
and problem interactive gamblers in the online survey reported existing problems before
gambling online, and one‐third indicated their problems were related to land‐based forms.
Interactive gambling problems accounted for a small proportion of gamblers presenting to
help services, indicating that land‐based problems and EGM use in particular remains the
dominant form of gambling associated with problems in Australia. However, interactive
gamblers were also less likely to report seeking help for gambling problems. These results
suggest that for a substantial proportion of interactive gamblers experiencing difficulties,
these problems are related to non‐interactive modes.
It is important to be mindful of the limitations of this research, including the omission of
mobile phones from the telephone survey, reliance on self‐report and the low numbers of
interactive gamblers in the population, making comparison of sub‐groups difficult. The
cross‐sectional nature of the research does not allow causal inferences to be drawn and
further research is recommended, including evaluation of prevention and treatment
programs specifically focused on interactive modes of gambling.
Despite these limitations, this study is the most comprehensive examination of interactive
gambling in Australia, and one of the most extensive studies internationally and makes a
significant contribution to the understanding of interactive gambling. The use of multiple
complementary research methods enables greater insight into how interactive gambling is
changing engagement in gambling. It can be concluded from this research that interactive
gamblers are a heterogeneous population, yet there appear to be significant differences
between this group and land‐based gamblers. It is likely that participation in this mode will
increase and proactive efforts by all key stakeholders should aim to address issues related to
the integration of interactive technologies in gambling.
xv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This is the research report for the project Interactive Gambling. Gambling Research Australia
commissioned this national study in 2011 to determine who, what, when, why and how
people are gambling using interactive technology in Australia.
The project specifications required the research team to review the published literature
relevant to the project, and design and implement a research methodology to determine:
•
•
•
•
•
The motivations, characteristics and behaviours of interactive gamblers;
Game play and medium preferences of interactive gamblers;
Current prevalence of interactive gambling in Australia;
Current prevalence of problem gamblers among interactive gamblers; and
The contribution of computer/internet to problem gambling in interactive gamblers.
OVERVIEW OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING IN AUSTRALIA
Interactive gambling refers to the range of gambling activities that occur through media
connected to the Internet (Gainsbury, Wood, Russell, Hing, & Blaszczynski, 2012). The term
‘interactive gambling’ is often used interchangeably with the terms ‘Internet’, ‘remote’, or
‘online’ gambling. Interactive gambling is a joint term capturing gaming and wagering on the
Internet. Interactive gaming includes playing games where outcomes are determined by
random number generators, for example blackjack, poker, lotteries and electronic gaming
machines (EGMs); and interactive wagering on sports field or race track events, where the
Internet represents a medium through which wagers are placed (Senate Information
Technologies Committee, 2000). The converging capabilities of computers, laptops,
netbooks, tablets, mobile phones, smart phones, interactive televisions, gaming consoles,
and wireless portable devices allow interactive gambling to be available almost anywhere at
any time.
The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA) regulates interactive gambling in Australia. The Act
prohibits gambling operators from offering interactive gambling services to Australian
residents with the exception of wagering and lotteries. The Act is considered to be largely
ineffective, with around 60% of the total value of interactive gambling in Australia,
estimated at AU$1.6 billion in 2010, spent on prohibited overseas based services
(Department of Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy [DBCDE], 2013a).
Although several reviews have been conducted, no amendments had been made to the IGA
at the time of writing this report.
xvi
Prior to the current study, the estimated prevalence of interactive gambling participation
was 0.1% to 7.5% of Australian adults (AC Neilson, 2007; Davidson & Rodgers, 2010;
Productivity Commission, 1999, 2010; Queensland Government, 2012; South Australian
Centre for Economic Studies, 2008; Sproston, Hing, & Palankay, 2012).
Sports betting and race wagering now represent the largest interactive gambling markets,
with substantial growth attributed to existing customers transitioning to interactive modes
from retail and telephone betting. Despite being legally available online, interactive lottery
ticket purchase has not increased at the same concurrent rate as interactive wagering. A
relatively small proportion of Australians play interactive poker and casino games; however,
as this activity occurs on offshore gambling sites, it is difficult to estimate the current size of
the market. During 2008‐09, Australians were estimated to spend $249 million gambling on
offshore poker sites and $541 million gambling on offshore casino sites (Productivity
Commission, 2010).
A significant concern about the nature and growth of interactive gambling is the apparent
association between interactive gambling and problem gambling given higher problem
gambling rates found amongst interactive gamblers compared to non‐interactive gamblers
(Gainsbury, Russell, Hing, Wood & Blaszczynski, 2013; Wardle, Moody, Griffiths, Orford &
Volberg, 2011; Wood & Williams, 2010). However, interactive compared to non‐interactive
gamblers are more likely to participate in a wider range of gambling activities, have a higher
frequency of gambling and greater gambling expenditure, with most also engaging in land‐
based gambling (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). Thus, researchers have speculated that it is
greater degree of involvement, rather than interactive gambling per se, that explains the
elevated rates of gambling problems found amongst interactive gamblers (Halme, 2011;
LaPlante, Nelson, LaBrie, & Shaffer, 2009; Philander & MacKay, 2013; Vaughan Williams,
Leighton, Parke, & Rigbye, 2008; Welte, Barnes, Tidwell, & Hoffman, 2009; Welte,
Wieczorek, Barnes, Tidwell, & Hoffman, 2004). Nevertheless, features of interactive
gambling that may elevate the risk of developing gambling problems include; convenience,
ease of access, ability to play in private, high speed continuous gambling, player incentives
and advertising, and the immersive nature of the Internet (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012,
Griffiths, 1999; Griffiths, 2012; Williams, West & Simpson, 2012; Williams, Wood & Parke,
2012; Wood & Williams, 2010; Wood, Williams & Parke, 2012). Further, the proportion of
gamblers seeking help indicating that their problems are related to interactive modes of
gambling is increasing (Gambling Help Online, 2012).
Previous research has investigated various aspects of interactive gambling, including
gambler characteristics, interactive gambling behaviour and gambling problems, and these
studies are reviewed in Chapter Two of this report. However, the current research is the
first national study of interactive gambling in Australia, and the first to use a methodology
that allows nationally representative results and prevalence data to be obtained.
xvii
RESEARCH METHODS
The empirical research for this study was conducted in five stages, enabling collection of
nationally representative survey data, along with rich in‐depth interview data. We also
obtained secondary data from gambling treatment agencies across Australia.
Stage 1: National Telephone Survey
A random digit dial (RDD) computer‐assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey of 15,006
Australians was conducted in late 2011. Of 15,006 Australian adult participants in the
screening section, 9,596 (64%) reported having engaged in gambling at least once in the last
12 months and were thus eligible to continue with the full survey. Interactive gamblers were
oversampled by design, with all 849 self‐reported interactive gamblers retained for the full
survey. Additionally 1,161 of the 8,747 self‐reported non‐interactive gamblers were retained
for the full survey. This sampling design facilitated direct comparisons between interactive
and non‐interactive gamblers.
Interactive gamblers were defined as respondents indicating that they had gambled within
the last 12 months on at least one of the surveyed activities using the Internet; non‐
interactive gamblers were defined as those who had gambled but not online within the last
12 months.
The telephone survey instrument was adapted with permission from Wood and Williams
(2010). The survey had ten main sections:
1. Respondent selection questions;
2. Respondent screening questions;
3. Gambling behaviour;
4. Patterns and preferences of interactive gambling;
5. The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI, Ferris & Wynne, 2001);
6. Gambling consequences and help‐seeking behaviour;
7. Alcohol, tobacco and substance use, and mental health;
8. Demographics and Internet access;
9. Gambling attitudes; and
10. Future research participation.
The sample was stratified by state and territory according to the 2006 Australian Census and
weighted according to available 2011 Australian Census data. Stratification was checked
against both the 2006 and 2011 Censuses and considered accurate enough to preclude
requirements for weighting by state/territory. A design weight was applied to account for
household size, and post‐stratification weighting corrected for the overrepresentation of
older adults and women amongst respondents.
xviii
Unless stated otherwise, the cross‐product of the design and post‐stratification weights was
used for all analyses. When calculating population prevalence figures, the different
probability of sampling for interactive and non‐interactive gamblers was also taken into
account.
Stage 2: National Online Survey
The primary objective of the National Online Survey was to identify the characteristics of a
large sample of interactive gamblers. Recruitment, yielding 4,594 usable responses, was
conducted in 2012 over several months though advertisements placed on Internet gambling
sites, gambling‐related sites, Google and Facebook.
The survey instrument was adapted with permission from Wood and Williams (2010) and
contained nine sections:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Gambling behaviour scale;
Interactive gambling behaviour;
Demographics;
Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI, Ferris & Wynne, 2001);
Problem gambling and help‐seeking;
Gambling knowledge and beliefs test;
Gambling attitudes;
Consequences of gambling; and
Feedback on the survey and future research participation.
The same definitions of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers were used as for the
National Telephone Survey.
Data were weighted to be comparable to the National Telephone Survey and, by extension,
the Australian adult population of gamblers. To conduct this weighting, all demographic and
selected gambling variables were compared between the surveys. Weights were calculated
to correct for age x gender, PGSI category, State/Territory of residence, interactive gambling
status and current living arrangements. Weights were multiplied to form a total weight and
these six variables were weighted by the total weight and again compared to the National
Telephone Survey data. This iterative process continued until weights were deemed to have
converged; this was achieved after eight iterations. Finally, weights were normed so that the
weighted N was equal to the total N answering each question. These normed final weights
were used for all analyses.
Stage 3: Interviews with interactive gamblers recruited from the general population
Fifty interactive non‐treatment seeking gamblers were recruited for in‐depth interviews.
The recruitment targeted respondents to the National Telephone Survey, and the National
Online Survey by end of August 2012. All 488 respondents who agreed to be invited for
further research and who had gambled at least once online in the previous 12 months were
contacted with an invitation to participate in a telephone interview. Of these, 150 people
agreed, and from these a sample of 50 interviewees with a diversity of interactive gambling
xix
preferences and PGSI scores was selected. The 50 participants ranged in age from 18 years
to 72 years (most aged between 30 and 50 years) with the majority being male (46
participants).
A trained interviewer conducted interviews of 20‐50 minute duration between September
2012 and November 2012. A $40 shopping voucher was offered as reimbursement.
Interviews were semi‐structured with seven main sections:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Transition from land‐based gambling to interactive gambling;
Media preferences for interactive gambling;
Motivations for interactive gambling;
Advertising and promotions for interactive gambling;
Contribution of interactive gambling to gambling problems;
Responsible gambling in online environments; and
Help‐seeking behaviour for gambling problems.
All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim by a professional
transcription service. The interview transcripts were analysed using NVivo software to
extract major and minor themes.
This report refers to this sample as ‘general population’ interviewees/participants because
they were interactive gamblers recruited from the general population, even though the
sample is not necessarily representative of the general population.
Stage 4: Interviews with treatment‐seeking interactive gamblers
This sample comprised 31 participants who had gambled online during the preceding 12
months and were receiving or seeking treatment for a gambling problem. Twenty‐three
participants were recruited through online advertising, seven through gambling helplines
and one through word‐of‐mouth. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 62 years (over one‐
half aged between 20 and 50 years) with the majority (25 participants) being male. EGMs
(10) and race betting (10) were the main types of problematic gambling, followed by sports
betting (3), poker (2) and casino games excluding poker (2). Four participants nominated
more than one main type of gambling causing them problems.
Interviews lasting between 30‐60 minutes were conducted by telephone by two clinical
psychologists between October 2012 and February 2013. All interviews were digitally
recorded and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. The interview
questions and data analysis methods were the same as used for Stage 3.
This report refers to this sample as ‘treatment‐seeking’ interviewees/participants.
Stage 5: Data collection from gambling treatment agencies
Available data compiled from eight Australian states and territories, in addition to national
Gambling Help Online services, were sought to obtain an estimate of the prevalence of
interactive gamblers amongst help‐seeking gamblers. All sources were contacted in early
xx
August 2013 to request the following information for the last financial or calendar year, with
data received from six jurisdictions and Gambling Help Online:
1. How many people present for help for themselves for a gambling problem;
2. How many of these, or what proportion, have some form of interactive gambling as
their primary or most problematic form of gambling; and
3. The aggregate characteristics of interactive gamblers who present for treatment
such as gender breakdown, age breakdown, type of problematic gambling, and any
other relevant statistics.
RESULTS
The studies’ key results are summarised here. Readers are referred to the full report for
more detailed findings. For this study, an interactive gambler was defined as someone who
had gambled on at least one interactive mode in the past 12 months, not excluding land‐
based modes.
MOTIVATIONS FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
•
•
•
•
•
The majority (63%) of interactive gamblers in the online survey and most of those
interviewed in the general population and treatment‐seeking samples nominated
convenience of access as by far the greatest advantage of interactive gambling over
land‐based gambling.
Related to convenient access, interviewees reported that interactive gambling
enabled faster betting, avoidance of queues and the potential to miss betting on
events, as important considerations relative to land‐based gambling.
Price differential, including more bonuses, free credits and better odds and payout
rates, was the second most commonly cited advantage of interactive gambling,
endorsed by over one‐third of online survey interactive gambling participants.
Slightly fewer interactive gamblers (32%) reported that physical comfort of gambling
from home was one of the main advantages of this mode as compared to land‐based
gambling.
Approximately 10% of interactive gamblers in the online survey reported a dislike of
land‐based venues and a similar proportion reported the privacy and anonymity as
advantages of interactive over land‐based gambling.
The most commonly cited disadvantages of interactive compared to land‐based
gambling reported by online survey interactive gamblers and general population
interviewees were that it was easier to spend money and this mode was too
convenient. A substantial proportion of these interviewees also stated that this
mode was more addictive, facilitated higher expenditure, and could cause problems.
xxi
•
One‐fifth (20%) of online survey interactive gambling respondents expressed
concern about online security of funds and personal information, and integrity of
sites.
CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Male gender was a significant predictor of interactive gambling in both surveys: 62%
and 77% of interactive gamblers in the telephone and online surveys, respectively.
Age was also a significant predictor of interactive gambling in both surveys, with
interactive gamblers significantly younger than their non‐interactive counterparts.
The mean age of interactive gamblers was 37 years (vs. 45 years) in the telephone,
and 41 years (vs. 45 years), in the online survey.
The telephone survey indicated interactive gamblers were more likely to be
university qualified and to have completed Year 12 than non‐interactive gamblers,
although no significant educational differences were found in the online survey.
Both surveys indicated that interactive gamblers were more likely to work full‐time
with household incomes between $90,000 and $119,000 while non‐interactive
gamblers were more likely to work in casual or part‐time positions.
Interactive gamblers in the telephone survey were less likely to be married than
land‐based gamblers. However, these findings were not replicated in the online
survey.
The online survey found that living in Victoria, Queensland or Western Australia
(compared to NSW) was a significant predictor for interactive gambling. The
telephone survey also found that Victorian gamblers were more likely to gamble
using interactive modes. No significant differences were found between individuals
from metropolitan or rural areas.
Australian‐born and English‐speaking respondents were significantly more likely to
be interactive gamblers than those born overseas or not speaking English as a first
language at home.
ATTITUDES AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GAMBLING, PROMOTIONS, AND THE LEGALITY OF
INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
•
•
Over two‐thirds (68%) of interactive gamblers in the national telephone survey
considered that harms outweighed the benefits of gambling for society, but overall a
significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers held more positive attitudes
towards gambling. Similar results were reported in the online survey.
Ten per cent of interactive gamblers in the online survey indicated that
advertisements and promotions influenced their decision to gamble on a particular
site with a further 10% reported marketing and promotions to be critical factors in
their initial uptake of online gambling.
xxii
•
•
•
•
•
Interactive gamblers in the online survey were significantly more likely than non‐
interactive gamblers to report that promotions increased online gambling, with 29%
reporting increased online expenditure as a result of viewing promotions.
Over half (52%) of interactive gamblers in the online survey believed that online and
traditional media promotions for online gambling should be allowed, 41% approved
online gambling promotions at sporting events and 25% during televised sporting
events. Of the interactive gamblers, 26% did not condone online gambling
promotions, compared to nearly 66% of non‐interactive gamblers, with all
differences statistically significant.
Interactive compared to non‐interactive gamblers had significantly more accurate
knowledge of the legal status of different forms of online gambling. Most interactive
gamblers were aware that sports and race wagering is legal in interactive modes,
although less than two‐thirds were aware that online lottery products are also legally
available.
However, compared to non‐interactive gamblers, interactive gamblers held
significantly more inaccurate beliefs about the legal availability of online instant
scratch tickets, keno and poker in Australia.
Only a small proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers indicated that
they would be more likely to gamble if all forms of gambling were legal through
interactive modes.
GAMBLING BEHAVIOURS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
•
•
•
•
•
Both surveys found that interactive gamblers engaged in significantly more forms
and frequency of gambling than non‐interactive gamblers.
The online survey found that participation in sports, horse and dog race betting and
poker were significant predictors of interactive gambling.
Non‐interactive gamblers were significantly more likely to use EGMs.
Interactive gamblers were found to have higher levels of gambling expenditure with
annual losses representing a significant predictor of interactive gambling. Interactive
gamblers in the telephone survey reported losing significantly more money on
lotteries, race wagering, and poker, compared to non‐interactive gamblers.
However, interactive gamblers in the online survey were significantly more likely to
report being ahead financially on sports and race wagering and poker, compared to
non‐interactive gamblers, although they were more likely to be behind on EGMs.
This may reflect findings from both the telephone and online surveys that interactive
gamblers were more likely to report that they were professional (3%/2%) or semi‐
professional (7%) gamblers.
xxiii
•
One‐quarter of the general population sample of interviewees also referred to
themselves as professional gamblers keeping detailed accounts of bets, and reported
earning a living from interactive gambling.
GAME PLAY PREFERENCES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
•
•
•
•
•
Price, including free credits and bonuses, was the most common factor influencing
choice of online gambling sites (by 43% of interactive gamblers in the online survey),
followed by site reputation (30%), and number of betting options (26%).
Most interactive gamblers preferred to use domestically regulated sites, although
this consideration did not influence choice of site for approximately 33% of
interactive gamblers and only 6% considered the jurisdiction where the site is
regulated when selecting an interactive gambling site.
Of interactive gamblers reporting playing interactive casino table games, the most
popular game was blackjack, followed by roulette and EGMs. However, only a
relatively small proportion reported playing these games.
The online survey revealed that over half (54%) of the interactive gamblers had only
one online gambling account, one‐fifth (21%) had accounts with two online
operators, and the remainder had multiple accounts.
Most interactive gamblers used credit (36%) or debit (25%) cards to deposit funds,
followed by direct bank transfer (14%). Nearly one‐fifth (19%) used various forms of
ewallets. For withdrawals, 13% reported that fast payout rates were an important
factor determining site selection.
MEDIUM PREFERENCES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
•
•
•
•
The majority (81%) of interactive gamblers were also land‐based gamblers. Despite
this, according to the online survey, 78% of interactive gamblers used interactive
modes for at least half of their gambling.
Wagering on sports and races were the two most popular interactive gambling
activities, with interactive gamblers using online modes for over 80% of their bets on
average. Nonetheless, only 55% of interactive sports bettors and 39% of interactive
race bettors, did so solely online, indicating that land‐based and telephone betting
options are still important.
Lotteries were the third most popular online activity reportedly used by 43% of all
interactive lottery players exclusively, and accounting for an average of 64% of ticket
purchases.
Poker was the fourth most popular online gambling activity. However, only 26% of
those who used interactive modes for poker did so exclusively and on average 41%
of poker play on average was conducted in land‐based venues. Similarly, gambling
on interactive casino table games accounted for only 57% of play, with 42% of
xxiv
•
•
•
•
•
interactive gamblers who engaged in this activity online also visiting land‐based
casinos.
Only a small proportion of interactive gamblers played EGMs online, and only a
minority of these EGM gamblers exclusively used online forms of EGMs (17%), which
is the lowest sole and average use of the interactive mode with the exception of
instant scratch tickets. These results may suggest that interactive modes do not
appear to replicate land‐based experiences, although a range of factors are likely to
have contributed to this finding, including the lack of access and awareness to online
EGMs as well as legislation prohibiting this type of gambling from being offered by
Australian online gambling providers.
Gamblers using interactive modes of bingo and keno appeared relatively satisfied
with offshore interactive services, with only a minority of gambling on these forms
conducted in land‐based venues amongst those who used interactive modes. These,
and instant scratch tickets, appeared to be the least popular activities undertaken via
interactive modes.
Most interactive gamblers (86%) reported using computers or laptops as their
preferred device for accessing interactive gambling.
Approximately 10% of interactive gamblers in the online survey reported a
preference for gambling via mobile phones. Less than 4% reported using other
portable devices, such as tablets, as the preferred means. Similar reports were
obtained from the national telephone survey.
Just over half (52%) of interactive gamblers in the national telephone survey
reported preferring this mode to land‐based and telephone gambling, with similar
results reported in the online survey, although 31% reported preferring both modes
equally, which was not a response option available in the telephone survey.
TRANSITION FROM TERRESTRIAL GAMBLING TO INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
•
•
Widespread uptake of interactive gambling is a relatively recent phenomenon, with
most interactive gamblers reporting commencement in 2009 or later; less than 10%
commenced prior to 2001, when the IGA was introduced.
Convenience appeared to be the driving motivator for using interactive modes.
Similarly, better price as compared to land‐based modes was a key consideration for
over one‐third of interactive gamblers, followed by comfort of gambling from home
and ease of access.
CURRENT PREVALENCE OF GAMBLING AND INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
•
Based on the telephone survey, past‐year adult prevalence of gambling in Australia
in 2010/2011 was 64%, representing a 21% decrease over 1999 figures (Productivity
Commission, 1999).
xxv
•
•
•
•
Preferences for lottery, instant scratch tickets, race betting, and EGM gambling were
consistent with 1999 patterns, although current trends suggest participation in race
betting is now greater than EGM gambling.
Participation in all gambling activities decreased except for sports betting which
more than doubled. The smallest decreases were observed for race betting and
casino table games.
Changes in betting on poker and other skill games were not readily apparent due to
different measures used in the two national studies.
Based on the telephone survey results, the past‐year adult prevalence rate of
interactive gambling in Australia in 2010/2011 was 8% and for land‐based only
gamblers, 56%.
CURRENT PREVALENCE OF PROBLEM GAMBLING AMONG INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
•
•
•
•
•
•
The 1999 Productivity Commission national prevalence survey estimated 1% of
adults experience severe levels and 1.1%, moderate levels of problem gambling. The
current telephone survey, the first national prevalence study conducted since that
time, obtained a problem gambling rate of 0.6%, with a further 3.7% at moderate,
and 7.7% at low risk.
These findings suggest a lower prevalence of problem but higher proportion of at‐
risk gamblers in the current study compared to the 1999 survey. However,
comparisons with the 1999 Productivity Commission national prevalence survey
must be made with caution as different measures of problem gambling were used.
The telephone survey indicated that problem gambling prevalence among
interactive gamblers was three times higher than among non‐interactive gamblers.
Interactive gamblers were also more than twice as likely to be moderate or low risk
gamblers, in comparison to non‐interactive gamblers.
The online survey produced somewhat discrepant results; interactive gamblers were
approximately twice as likely as non‐interactive gamblers to be classified as low or
moderate risk gamblers on the PGSI, but differences in problem gambling rates were
not significant.
From both surveys, moderate risk and problem gamblers engaging in interactive
gambling were most likely to report problems relating to race wagering, EGMs and
sports betting. In comparison, non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers
were most likely to report problems with EGMs.
Data from both surveys on state‐based treatment services demonstrated that
interactive modes of gambling are responsible for a minority of gambling problems
for which formal treatment is sought.
xxvi
CONSEQUENCES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In both surveys, interactive gamblers had higher rates of psychological distress than
non‐interactive gamblers.
Higher levels of psychological distress were predictive of being an interactive
gambler in the online survey. However, the Kessler‐6 scores did not reach clinically
significant levels.
In the online survey a higher proportion of interactive than land‐based only gamblers
attributed symptoms to their gambling and reported other negative consequences
from their gambling, for example, life being less enjoyable, having difficulty
controlling their gambling, preoccupation with gambling and gambling to escape
worries.
Interactive gamblers were more likely than non‐interactive gamblers to attribute
interpersonal, work‐related and financial problems related to their gambling.
Non‐interactive gamblers were more likely to report gambling‐related consequences
arguably more serious than those reported by interactive gamblers; for example,
major relationship breakdowns, loss of contact with children, change or loss of
employment, bankruptcy and loss of savings.
Results from the telephone survey found that interactive gamblers had higher rates
of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use than non‐interactive gamblers.
However, the online survey indicated that interactive gamblers were significantly
less likely to consume alcohol when gambling and to drink alcohol and smoke when
gambling online than offline. This finding indicates that they were unlikely to be
using interactive modes to avoid smoking restrictions in land‐based venues.
It is important to interpret all findings with caution as causality could not be
determined from the cross‐sectional nature of this research.
CONTRIBUTION OF INTERNET GAMBLING TO PROBLEM GAMBLING IN INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
•
•
•
Higher rates of problem gambling severity were found in both samples of interactive
gamblers and the online survey found that interactive gamblers were more likely to
be low risk and moderate risk gamblers, as compared to non‐interactive gamblers.
Despite these findings, in both surveys, problem gambling severity was not a
predictor that distinguished interactive gamblers from non‐interactive gamblers
when controlling for other variables.
Online survey results suggested that interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers
were most likely to attribute their gambling problems to interactive forms. However,
33% of interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers in the online, and 58% of
xxvii
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
their counterparts in the telephone survey reported problems related to land‐based
gambling. These findings generally aligned with the treatment agency information
showing that a minority of those seeking formal help reported problems related to
interactive gambling.
Moderate risk and problem gamblers in the telephone survey did not indicate any
significant difference in the most problematic form of gambling, with EGMs reported
by almost half of all participants; however the small sample size made further
interpretation of results difficult. In comparison, moderate risk and problem
interactive gamblers in the online survey were more likely to attribute problems to
race and sports betting than non‐interactive gamblers, although EGMs were
reported as the central problem by 19% of interactive gamblers (vs. 50% of non‐
interactive gamblers).
Although mobile phones were the preferred device by less than 10% of all interactive
gamblers, over 12% of moderate risk and problem interactive gamblers in the
telephone and online surveys attributed their problems to these devices.
In both surveys, just over 50% of moderate risk and problem interactive gamblers
reported experiencing problems prior to gambling online and about half of these
stated that interactive forms had exacerbated such problems.
Amongst interactive gamblers developing problems after commencing online
gambling, a substantial proportion in both the online (47%) and telephone surveys
(88%) agreed that interactive modes of gambling had contributed to these problems.
Analyses of data found that males, younger interactive gamblers and non‐English
speakers were more likely to have higher PGSI scores. The online survey found that
wagering on sports, races and games of skill, poker and EGM gambling was
predictive of greater problem gambling severity among interactive gamblers. The
telephone survey found that participation in more gambling forms was related to
higher PGSI scores among interactive gamblers.
Similar to the predictors of problem gambling severity amongst interactive gamblers,
moderate risk and problem interactive gamblers were more likely to bet on sports,
races and poker, compared to moderate risk and problem non‐interactive gamblers.
In contrast, non‐interactive moderate risk or problem gamblers were significantly
more likely to bet on EGMs, drink alcohol while gambling and have higher levels of
psychological distress compared to interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers.
The treatment agency data presented a similar profile of gamblers reporting
problems associated with interactive modes. Treatment‐seeking interactive
gamblers were mostly males, aged between 18 and 39 years, with problem relating
to sports and race wagering.
Causality of gambling problems cannot be determined from this study. However, in
the online survey, 15% of participants reported that interactive gambling was more
addictive than land‐based forms.
xxviii
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mobile or other wireless devices were specifically mentioned as contributing to
excessive gambling by making gambling constantly and easily accessible.
The availability of information online allowed some gamblers to learn more about
different types of gambling and betting fields, leading to increased betting.
Convenience of interactive gambling, combined with isolation and boredom,
contributed to the problematic gambling.
A minority of telephone and online survey participants (17%/12%) reported that use
of electronic funds increased online spending.
Respondents in both interview samples acknowledged gambling greater amounts
online than they would have in venues and that, compared to cash, virtual currency
was extremely easy to spend and lose track of. Gambling with digital currency
appeared to have lower psychological value than cash and could lead to spending
more than intended.
Greater expenditure was also attributed to the ease and swiftness of depositing
money repeatedly into online accounts, through automatically linked credit or debit
cards and bank accounts, reducing any ‘cooling off’ period and increasing
opportunities to chase losses.
Low and high risk gambling Interviewees expressed concerns regarding the provision
of credit by online operators, with no measures to confirm whether customers could
afford such credit; and credit may be enticing for problem gamblers.
Privacy and anonymity of interactive gambling was reported to be a risk factor by
several participants in the general population interview sample. Compared to land‐
based venues where others may intervene, gambling online at home had no
safeguards to prevent excessive play. This led to lower levels of guilt, perceived
accountability and stigma.
Promotional offers often led some to place bets they would not have otherwise.
Some gamblers reported that their frustration at losing the promoted bets resulted
in them chasing losses.
Other participants reported spending more of their own money in an effort to gain
additional credit and through requirements to ‘play through’ these credit offers
numerous times before any winnings could be withdrawn.
Frequent email promotions were also mentioned by general population interviewees
as contributing to individuals gambling more than intended, and were perceived as
targeting particular vulnerable individuals, including problem gamblers.
Treatment‐seeking interviewees viewed email and pop‐up online advertisements as
excessive and predatory as they were often displayed when individuals were
engaged in gambling‐unrelated online activities.
xxix
•
Interactive gamblers described speed of interactive compared to land‐based
gambling as contributing to more rapid losses and placement of more bets.
HELP‐SEEKING BEHAVIOURS, LIMIT SETTING AND RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING FOR INTERACTIVE
GAMBLING
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Both surveys found that around 75% of moderate risk and problem gamblers had not
considered seeking help in the past.
Self‐help strategies were the most popular approaches adopted, particularly among
non‐interactive gamblers.
Only a minority of participants reported self‐excluding from an interactive gambling
site.
Around half of treatment‐seeking interviewees reported challenges in seeking help;
waiting for counselling appointments, services not helpful or meeting needs, and
lack of availability of appropriate support, particularly outside traditional office
hours.
Both interactive and non‐interactive gamblers preferred face‐to‐face modes of
treatment. However, interactive gamblers in the online survey were more likely to
prefer an online service, and non‐interactive gamblers, a telephone service.
Over 33% of moderate risk and problem gamblers in the online survey reported that
they would not seek help in the future.
Only a minority of interactive gamblers in the online survey sought facilities to set
limits when selecting a site. Nearly two‐fifths of the general population interview
sample reported setting their own limits for online gambling, the majority of whom
were experiencing gambling‐related problems.
Treatment‐seeking gamblers used a greater variety of control strategies for
interactive gambling, but many reported that these remained ineffective.
Responsible gambling strategies that respondents considered would be effective
included limits, warnings and information on seeking help, removal of credit betting
capabilities, identification of problematic players based on account data, and limits
on promotions, improved self‐exclusion options and information, and immediate
and more thorough identification checks.
Participants commented that self‐exclusion options were too difficult to find and
implement, should be accessible through mobile platforms, and that exclusion
orders be more difficult to reverse.
Despite these recommendations, participants acknowledged that gamblers could
easily avoid responsible gambling measures by gambling on multiple sites.
xxx
LIMITATIONS
The results of this study should be interpreted with the following key limitations in mind.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comparisons with previous surveys must be made with caution as different
measures of problem gambling are used and the current study’s sample size was
smaller than found in other prevalence studies. Although the telephone survey
surveyed 15,006 Australians, only 2,010 completed the entire survey.
Given the low prevalence of interactive gambling in the population, all interactive
gamblers were retained in the telephone survey to ensure a sufficient sample for
analysis. Oversampling interactive gamblers may have biased the total sample,
although weighting was used to make the sample as representative as possible.
Only landlines were included in the telephone survey. However, previous
comparison of telephone survey methodologies did not find any significant
differences between the populations of landline, mobile and mobile phone only
users on levels of interactive gambling (Jackson, Pennay, Dowling, Coles‐Janess, &
Christensen, in press).
The online survey gained a larger sample of interactive gamblers to allow more
detailed analyses. The sample was self‐selecting and may have been biased due to
the recruitment methods used. However, the online survey data were weighted to
make results as representative as possible of the Australian adult population of
gamblers.
The weighting method used for the telephone survey was limited due to a
restructure at the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is explained in the weighting
section. However, we believe the impacts of this limitation were minimal.
Research indicates that individuals perceive and report gambling expenditure in
different ways and that in general, retrospective estimates of gambling expenditure
appear unreliable (Wood & Williams, 2007). While the wording used for expenditure
questions was based on evidence suggesting optimal results, the sum of spend for
each form of gambling was only weakly correlated with overall reported spend.
Because of this unreliability, only limited expenditure results are reported.
The surveys provided cross‐sectional results and as such do not allow causality to be
determined. This made it difficult to consider changes over time, such as the
transition from land‐based to interactive gambling.
Our small purposive interview samples limit the generalisability of these findings.
The qualitative results are also limited by the recruitment of only ten women
xxxi
•
interactive gamblers for interviews. Self‐reported interview data relied on
participants’ selective and perhaps biased memories.
Data from treatment agencies did not allow accurate national estimates because of
the varying bases used to determine if clients were seeking help relating to
interactive gambling. Additionally, clients could be counted more than once under
current data collection systems, first when they contact a helpline and again if they
attend counselling.
IMPLICATIONS
Some key implications arising from the study’s findings are identified below, but readers are
advised to consult Chapter Nine for a fuller discussion of the research findings.
•
•
•
•
•
Gambling participation in Australia has changed considerably since the last national
survey in 1999, including the exponential growth of interactive gambling and the
accompanying increase in some forms of gambling, notably sports betting. These
changes suggest the need for more regular national surveys of gambling patterns in
Australia, to ensure that policy developments, industry regulations, public health
measures and gambling help services are informed by current knowledge and
awareness of shifting trends.
Growth in interactive gambling participation is likely to continue given the
considerable perceived advantages over land‐based gambling and the maturing of
the Internet as a medium for activities. Ongoing research is needed to monitor
changing interactive gambling participation and its impacts on behaviour and
problems amongst Australians.
Only a small proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers indicated that
they would be more likely to gamble if all forms were legal through interactive
modes. These results reflect low levels of concerns about the illegality of online
gambling and suggest that interactive gambling regulations have not been effectively
communicated to consumers.
Most gamblers, both interactive and non‐interactive, considered that harms of
gambling outweigh benefits for society overall. This finding emphasises the ongoing
need for gambling harm minimisation measures to be implemented in Australia,
including measures tailored specifically to the online gambling environment and to
interactive gamblers.
While public health strategies have focused most on EGM gambling, the growth of
interactive gambling, particularly sports betting, suggests that the focus of these
public health measures needs broadening and should especially target males,
younger interactive gamblers and non‐English speakers, as these were predictive of
xxxii
•
•
•
•
•
•
higher PGSI scores. Additionally, use of interactive gambling amongst young adults
warrants further research attention.
Public health measures could also focus on educating Australians about potential
risks associated with interactive gambling, especially in relation to its easy
accessibility, speed of betting, use of digital money and credit to gamble with, and
promotions that encourage increased gambling, as these factors were perceived to
contribute most to gambling problems associated with interactive gambling.
Further investigation could determine whether the causal pathway to the
development of gambling problems differs between interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers. As participation in interactive gambling is relatively recent and increasing,
it is possible that related problems might increase over time with increased
participation in this activity.
Advertisements and promotions for interactive gambling appear highly influential in
increasing online gambling amongst a substantial proportion of gamblers, suggesting
that research is needed to identify those that encourage problem gambling
behaviours. The growth of social media also adds complexity to any tighter
regulation of this marketing. Increased social marketing efforts could offset the
persuasive appeal of advertisements and promotions for interactive gambling to
better protect consumers.
One‐fifth of interactive gamblers raised concerns about the safety and security of
funds and personal information with online operators . Education could advance
knowledge about optimal consumer protection measures for gamblers to use in the
online environment.
Relatively small proportions of interactive gamblers currently prefer gambling via
mobile devices and digital television. These preferences may change as mobile apps
and platforms become more sophisticated and offer greater features and improved
security. Ongoing research is needed to monitor changing preferences for interactive
gambling and the impacts these may have on gambling and gambling problems.
A widely held view was that interactive gambling requires more responsible
gambling measures than land‐based modes, with interactive gambling sites
perceived as not doing enough to protect customers. The potential efficacy of a
range of responsible gambling measures advocated by this study’s participants
requires further investigation. These strategies include limits, warnings and
information about seeking help, removal of credit betting capabilities, identification
of problematic players based on account data, limits on promotions, improved self‐
exclusion options and information, and immediate and more thorough identification
checks.
xxxiii
•
•
The findings confirm that many interactive gamblers experiencing harms are unlikely
to seek help, particularly from a professional source. Nonetheless, the results show
the importance of providing a broad range of resources for interactive gamblers,
including self‐help and professional support, as well as resources for friends and
family members of gamblers through online, telephone and land‐based modes.
Development and implementation of a nationally consistent client data set across all
gambling help services in Australia would enable accurate national statistics to be
collected on the contribution of interactive gambling to formal help‐seeking for
gambling problems to inform the provision of appropriate help services.
xxxiv
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This is the research report for the project Interactive Gambling, commissioned by Gambling
Research Australia (GRA). GRA is responsible to the Council of Australian Government
(COAG) Select Council of Gambling Reform for managing and implementing a national
gambling research agenda.
In 2011, GRA contracted the Centre for Gambling Education and Research at Southern Cross
University to undertake this study in collaboration with researchers from the University of
Sydney, the University of Lethbridge, and Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Eastern
Health. The study was conducted over 30 months, commencing in June 2011.
1.2 AIMS AND DEFINITIONS
The project specifications identified that this was to be ‘a national study to determine who,
what, when, why and how people are gambling using interactive technology in Australia’.
GRA (2010) noted the following definitions to be used:
•
•
•
•
Interactive gambling refers to the range of gambling activities that occur through
interactive mediums.
Interactive mediums include Internet, phone and digital television.
Gambling includes gaming and wagering.
Problem gambling ‘is characterised by difficulties in limiting money and/or time
spent on gambling which leads to adverse consequences for the gambler, others or
for the community’ (Neal, O’Neil, & Delfabbro, 2005).
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The scope of this study includes:
•
The full array of interactive wagering and gaming services such as:
o Internet casinos (e.g., interactive slot machines, baccarat, roulette, craps
etc.);
o Internet poker games where players can play against each other online; and
o Internet sites for wagering.
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Game play/wagering preferences of interactive gamblers (e.g., types of games,
frequency, expenditure, preferred times of play etc.);
Medium preferences of interactive gamblers;
Motivations for interactive gambling;
Transition from terrestrial gambling to interactive gambling;
Demographic characteristics of interactive gamblers;
Current prevalence of interactive gambling in Australia;
Current prevalence of problem gambling in interactive gamblers;
The contribution of the interactive medium to problem gambling; and
Help‐seeking behaviours of interactive gamblers.
1.4 STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
The project specifications required the successful tenderer to:
•
•
Design and implement a research methodology that addresses the project
specifications.
Determine:
o The motivations, characteristics and behaviours of interactive gamblers;
o Game play and medium preferences of interactive gamblers;
o Current prevalence of interactive gambling in Australia;
o Current prevalence of problem gamblers among interactive gamblers; and
•
o The contribution of computer/internet to problem gambling in interactive
gamblers.
Review the published literature relevant to the project.
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
This research report is structured into nine chapters:
•
•
Chapter One has introduced the study by detailing its aims and scope, requirements
and report structure.
Chapter Two reviews the published literature relevant to the project.
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter Three explains the project methodology.
Chapter Four presents results of a random digit dial National Telephone Survey with
a starting sample of 15,006 Australian adults, with sub‐samples of interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers completing the full survey. Results are weighted to be
broadly representative of the Australian adult population.
Chapter Five details results of a National Online Survey of 4,594 interactive and non‐
interactive adult gamblers, with results weighted to be broadly representative of the
Australian adult population of gamblers.
Chapter Six presents the results of interviews with 50 interactive gamblers recruited
from the general population and who were not receiving treatment for a gambling
problem at the time of the interviews.
Chapter Seven presents results from 31 interactive gamblers who had recently
received or were currently seeking or receiving treatment for a gambling problem at
the time of the interviews.
Chapter Eight presents secondary data from treatment agencies across Australia
pertaining to clients presenting for gambling problems related to interactive forms of
gambling.
Chapter Nine summarises and discusses the research findings and their implications.
3
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Internet use in Australia is widespread; Australia has the fifth highest level of Internet
penetration in the world at 90%, with 81% of Australians (aged 16 and above) classified as
active online users (i.e., have used the Internet in the past month) (AC Nielsen, 2012). There
were 12.2 million Internet subscribers in Australia at the end of December 2012, which
represents an annual growth of 5% (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2013). Broadband
connections represent 98% of all Internet connections, including mobile broadband, which
accounted for 49% of all connections. In particular, the uptake of mobile and fixed wireless
technology has increased in recent years, with connections through this technology
surpassing digital subscriber line (DSL) connections for the first time in June 2011 (ABS,
2013). At the end of June 2011, there were 9.7 million mobile handset subscribers in
Australia with Internet‐enabled mobile phones (ABS, 2013).
‘Interactive gambling’ refers to the range of gambling activities (including gaming and
wagering) that occur through media connected to the Internet (for example computers,
mobile phones, and digital television) (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). Internet, remote, or
online gambling are terms often used interchangeably with interactive gambling. In
Australia, gambling is a collective term for the sub‐categories of ‘gaming’ and ‘wagering’
(Senate Information Technologies Committee, 2000). The Netbets report (Senate
Information Technologies Committee, 2000) defined interactive gaming as a gambling event
based on a computer program with the outcome being determined by a random number
generator; it includes games such as blackjack, poker, lotteries and electronic gaming
machines. In contrast, they defined wagering as a gambling event that takes place on a
sports field or racetrack, with the Internet simply a mechanism for placing the wager. Thus,
interactive gambling is a joint term capturing gaming and wagering on the Internet. The
converging capabilities of computers, laptops, netbooks, tablets, mobile phones, smart
phones, interactive televisions, gaming consoles, and wireless portable devices allow
interactive gambling to be available almost anywhere at any time. For the purposes of this
report, interactive gamblers are defined as gamblers who have engaged in at least one form
of interactive gambling in the past 12 months. This is not an exclusive definition, meaning
that interactive gamblers may also use non‐interactive modes of gambling, including visiting
land‐based venues and betting on the telephone. A non‐interactive gambler is defined as
someone who has gambled in the past 12 months, but has not used any interactive forms;
as such, they have engaged only in land‐based or telephone gambling.
This chapter includes the results of a comprehensive literature review and environmental
scan to determine the existing knowledge on who, what, when, why and how people are
4
gambling using interactive technology in Australia. Key areas examined were determined by
the project scope and include:
•
•
•
•
Australian interactive gambling regulation;
The types of interactive gambling products available;
Interactive gambling preferences and how this type of gambling is used;
•
Medium preferences of interactive gamblers;
•
Transition from terrestrial to interactive gambling;
•
•
•
•
Motivations for interactive gambling;
Demographic characteristics of interactive gamblers;
Current prevalence of interactive gambling in Australia;
The contribution of interactive gambling to problem gambling; and
Help‐seeking behaviour of interactive gamblers.
2.2 AUSTRALIAN INTERACTIVE GAMBLING REGULATION
The seminal 1999 Productivity Commission gambling inquiry reported that Internet
gambling offers the potential for consumer benefits, as well as new risks for problem
gambling. Recognising difficulties with the prohibition of Internet gambling, the Productivity
Commission advised managed liberalisation, including licensing of sites, consumer
protection measures, and taxation, to meet the majority of concerns, subject to the active
involvement of Federal, State and Territory governments.
Australia was one of the first countries to implement legislation directly addressing Internet
gambling with the introduction of the Interactive Gambling Act (IGA) in 2001 (Gainsbury &
Wood, 2011). In contrast to the Productivity Commission’s (1999) recommendations, the
Netbets review by the Senate Select Committee on Information Technology (2000), and the
initiatives of State and Territory governments, the IGA prohibits the provision of Internet
gambling to Australian residents, with the exception of licensed lotteries and wagering (not
including in‐run betting). Under the IGA it is not illegal for Australians to place bets with
offshore gambling providers. This overarching Federal legislation allows states and
territories to independently regulate Internet gambling in an effort to preserve individual
economic policies and regulatory practices (Gainsbury & Wood, 2011).
In 2008, the High Court of Australia ruled unanimously in favour of allowing Western
Australian residents to legally place bets with a licensed online betting exchange regulated
in Tasmania. The High Court decision effectively overturned state laws that restricted
interstate gambling operators from competing within a state. This decision enabled online
wagering operators regulated in one jurisdiction to publish race fields, advertise and offer
bets to customers located in other Australian jurisdictions.
5
A second national inquiry into gambling was completed by the Productivity Commission in
2010 resulting in another recommendation for further liberalisation, legalisation and
regulation of Interactive gambling. This proposal was made on the basis that regulation,
rather than prohibition, would significantly reduce the risks posed by Internet gambling by
requiring sophisticated harm minimisation and probity measures to be provided (Gainsbury,
2010). The Productivity Commission again noted the substantial difficulties in effectively
prohibiting Internet gambling. Furthermore, regulation and legalisation was viewed to
potentially increase competition in gambling, thereby providing better outcomes for
consumers, supply Australian businesses with greater commercial opportunities and yield
tax revenue. The Productivity Commission stated that the Australian Government should
monitor the effectiveness of harm minimisation measures as well as the performance of the
regulator overseeing the national regulatory regime. In an attempt to minimize
inconsistencies between online gambling regimes, the Productivity Commission (2010)
recommended that Australia adopt a national regulatory approach. Furthermore, where
possible, regulation should align with that of similarly liberalised countries such as Canada
and the UK, as well as non‐government organisations that promote international standards
(such as eCOGRA). The Federal Government rejected the Productivity Commission’s
recommendations in regards to Internet gambling and stated that it planned to continue
with the current regulatory regime (Gainsbury, 2010).
Various stakeholders have questioned the effectiveness and appropriateness of the IGA.
Between 2010 and 2012 the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy (DBCDE) and the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform (JSCOGR) held
several public inquiries and stakeholder consultations to consider revisions to regulations. In
the period from July 2010 to June 2011, the Australian Communication and Media Authority
completed 48 investigations of allegations of operators providing Internet gambling illegally
to Australian residents. Yet, no operator was prosecuted for violating the IGA, which has a
limited range of enforcement options. Penalties of AUD$220,000 per day for individuals and
AUD$1.1 million per day for corporations can apply for prosecutions under the Act (DBCDE,
2011).
There is limited information available to ascertain the extent of consumer awareness of the
regulation of interactive gambling. A survey conducted in 2003 found that 64% of
respondents were not aware that legislation made it illegal for Internet gaming operators to
provide services to Australian residents (poker machines, casino games, etc.), although a
greater number of Internet gamblers (63%) displayed awareness (Allen Consulting Group,
2003). Of those aware of the legislation, all except one stated that the legislation had not
altered their Internet gambling behaviour. A survey of 4,680 Australian interactive gamblers
in 2011 found that less than 10% of respondents chose a gambling site based on whether it
was regulated in Australia and only 3% reported the illegality of gambling sites as being a
disadvantage (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). These results suggest that the IGA is not
effective in deterring interactive gamblers from using offshore sites.
6
In March 2013, the DBCDE released the final report of the review of the IGA (DBCDE,
2013a). This report concluded that the IGA was ineffective and may be exacerbating the risk
of harm due to the high level of usage of prohibited Internet gambling services. A series of
recommendations were made to increase the effectiveness of the IGA in reducing the risk of
harm by working towards several main objectives:
1. Enabling and encouraging prohibited service providers to become licensed in
Australia;
2. Introducing a national standard for harm minimisation and consumer protection;
3. Enhancing enforcement and deterrence measures against prohibited offshore
Internet gambling providers; and
4. Encouraging Australians to only use legally provided interactive gambling services.
Several key changes recommended in the DBCDE (2013a) report included the liberalisation
of in‐play betting and the conduct of a pilot study of online tournament poker. Prior to any
liberalisation of interactive gambling, it was recommended that additional measures
addressing harm minimisation and sports integrity be implemented (Nettleton & Huang,
2013). At the time of writing no further announcements had been made in relation to these
recommendations although it is understood that consultations with relevant stakeholders
have begun with regards to a national approach to harm minimisation.
Australia was one of the first jurisdictions worldwide to specifically regulate interactive
gambling, and prior to the introduction of the IGA, was set to become one of the first
jurisdictions to offer legal and regulated online gambling (Gainsbury & Wood, 2011). In the
decade since the introduction of the IGA, a wide variety of regulations has been introduced,
and amended as policy makers have attempted to respond to this new and increasingly
popular mode of gambling. One of the central difficulties faced by regulators is the difficulty
controlling an activity that can be easily accessed by residents, offered by an operator
licensed in an offshore jurisdiction, and based in another jurisdiction (Gainsbury, 2012).
There have been few instances of regulators successfully prosecuting an operator for
breaching interactive gambling laws. However, as the interactive gambling market has
matured, consumers now seek to gamble with reputable operators who abide by
regulations, including consumer protection measures (Gainsbury, Parke et al., 2013).
Jurisdictions such as the UK, Alderney and Isle of Man, require relatively high levels of
consumer protection, including responsible gambling provisions, for the provision of an
online gambling licence. However, other jurisdictions have fewer requirements and audits of
sites, potentially posing a greater risk to consumers who use these services, particularly
those who reside in foreign jurisdictions. Although Australians can technically access
offshore interactive gambling sites, it is unlikely that many consumers make the effort to
understand the differences in operating requirements between these sites. As such, they
may be exposing themselves to risks of fraud, theft and disreputable conduct, for which
they have little recourse (DBCDE, 2013). A full review of international regulations for
7
interactive gambling is beyond the scope of the current review, however Gainsbury (2012)
includes a review of many relevant jurisdictions. Consideration of policies that have been
enacted internationally may be useful for future reviews of Australia’s own policies.
•
•
•
The 2001 Interactive Gambling Act (IGA) prohibits gambling operators from offering
interactive gambling services to Australian residents with the exception of wagering
and lotteries.
This regulation is considered to be largely ineffective and although several reviews
have been conducted, no revisions have been implemented.
Australians can access a vast number of interactive gambling sites offered by
offshore providers, which include a range of consumer protection measures.
2.3 ESTIMATED PREVALENCE OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
According to the Productivity Commission’s National Gambling Survey conducted in 1998‐
1999, nearly 90,000 Australians gambled on the Internet, representing approximately 0.6%
of Australian adults (Productivity Commission, 1999). Few representative studies, and no
national prevalence studies, have been conducted until now. In 2010, the Productivity
Commission considered industry estimates and state‐based surveys and estimated that
approximately 0.1% to 4.3% of their adult populations had participated in interactive
gambling in the past 12 months (Productivity Commission, 2010). State‐based surveys
reported that approximately 0.1% to 7.5% of adults have participated in Internet gambling
(AC Neilson, 2007; Davidson & Rodgers, 2010; South Australian Centre for Economic Studies,
2008; Queensland Government, 2012; Sproston, Hing, & Palankay, 2012).
Evidence from Roy Morgan Research suggested that in 2010, online gamblers accounted for
around 9.4% of all gamblers (unpublished data sourced from Roy Morgan Research). Further
estimates indicated that around 3.9% of the adult population regularly gambled online and
0.9% of the adult population participated in types of online gaming that are prohibited
under the IGA (Allen Consulting Group, 2012). A higher figure of 30% of individuals aged 16
and over gambling online was reported by an earlier nationally representative telephone
poll conducted by Roy Morgan Research (Neilsen Online, 2010). Again in an earlier poll,
Internet gambling was reported to be one of the top six activities conducted online, by all
age groups (Neilsen Online, 2008).
As of August 2013, Australians have access to approximately 2,170 Internet gambling sites
based in 75 jurisdictions that accept play from Australia through 210 different payment
methods (Online Casino City, 2013). In contrast, there are around 30‐35 legal wagering sites
regulated in Australia.
To provide context for these figures, around 70% of Australians are estimated to participate
in some form of gambling each year (Productivity Commission, 2010). In 1999, the most
popular forms of gambling based on participation were lotteries (60%), instant scratch
8
tickets (46%) and gaming machines (39%), followed by race betting (24%; Productivity
Commission, 1999). The 2010 inquiry concluded that the gambling industry is relatively
mature and stable, although participation levels appear to have declined for several
traditionally popular forms of gambling.
•
Prior to the current study, the estimated prevalence of interactive gambling was
0.1% to 7.5% of Australian adults.
2.4 TYPES OF GAMES
2.4.1 LOTTERY
Lotteries were the first forms of gambling to capitalise on the use of the Internet. Interactive
lottery sites allow gamblers to participate in terrestrial lotteries via online purchase of
tickets. Customers can set preferences to automatically purchase tickets on a regular basis
(which may be particularly appealing for individuals who play the same numbers weekly)
rather than having to physically purchase a ticket from a vendor. Similarly, customers can
automatically deposit any winnings into an account, which may reduce the temptation to
purchase additional tickets with winnings. As customers are registered players, winners are
easily identified and issues related to retailer fraud or lost tickets are greatly reduced.
Most forms of interactive lottery services are permitted under the IGA, except for electronic
scratch lotteries or other instant lotteries. This is based on conclusions that lotteries
represent a low‐risk gambling activity (Productivity Commission, 2010). Because of the high
frequency and repetitive nature of instant interactive lottery products, the DBCDE (2013a)
concluded that these pose a significantly greater risk to players and have characteristics that
are recognised as increasing the incidence of problem gambling. In August 2013 there were
approximately 104 lottery sites accepting players from Australia (Online Casino City, 2013).
The top five lottery sites accepting play from Australia ranked by popularity in August 2013
were Gold Casket, Oz Lotteries, NetLotto, Prime ScratchCards, and TheLotter.com (Online
Casino City, 2013).
Australian lottery operators have been offering online sales of lottery products for several
years. Tatts first introduced its online facility in 2001, followed by Golden Casket in 2006,
NSW Lotteries in 2008, Lotterywest in 2011 and South Australia in 2012. Internet‐based
sales represent a growing, but still relatively small channel for total lottery sales. Tatts
Lotteries, which accounts for the majority of Internet‐based lottery sales, reported that
Internet‐based lottery sales represented approximately 5.7% of total sales in the 2010/11
financial year (Australian Lottery Blocs, 2012). In 2012 Tatts reported a 28% increase in
lottery turnover and a 37% increase in the number of accounts purchasing lottery products
each week from October 2011 until June 2012 (Tatts Group, 2012). Submissions to the
review of the IGA indicated that land‐based retail sales of lottery products, including instant
lotteries, have declined over the past five years by as much as 24% in Queensland (DBCDE,
2013a).
9
An Australian household survey completed in 2012 estimated that expenditure on lotteries
would grow 9.7% in 2012 and a further 5.8% in 2013 (CLSA, 2013). The authors attribute
some of this growth to the cross‐promotion of interactive lottery products to wagering
customers and found that 87% of wagering customers also purchase lottery products. Data
obtained from Roy Morgan Research found that 2.6% of Australians reported typically
purchasing their lottery tickets online in the 12 months to June 2010 (unpublished data
sourced from Roy Morgan Research). The Queensland Gambling Household Survey 2011‐12
reported that among those who had purchased lottery products in the last 12 months, 8%
had used the Internet (Queensland Government, 2012). The Australian Lottery Blocs
reported that the average spend for online sales is lower than for retail card members
(Australian Lottery Blocs, 2011). Online lottery customers are also reportedly younger than
retail customers, for example 41% of Tatts online members in 2010/11 were under 40 years
of age as compared with 12% of retail members, although the extent to which retail
members are representative of the overall retail population is not stated.
2.4.2 RACE WAGERING AND SPORTS BETTING
Wagering (or betting) refers to gambling on the outcome of a racing, sporting, or other
event, or on contingencies within an event. Wagering represents the largest sector
(approximately 43%) of the global Internet gambling market, with USD$74.3 billion
estimated to be wagered with online operators in 2012 (Henwood, 2011). This represents a
massive growth of over 210% from the USD$23.9 billion wagered online in 2004 (Henwood,
2011). The growth of online wagering likely represents a combination of existing wagering
customers using interactive forms rather than land‐based or telephone betting, in addition
to new customers. Many international jurisdictions have introduced legalised wagering,
increasingly including Internet and mobile wagering, to reduce illegal betting markets,
regulate this activity and include consumer protection and integrity measures and generate
employment, tourism and funds for the racing and sporting industries as well as
governments (Gainsbury & Wood, 2011).
The wagering market includes several models for betting options. Fixed odds betting is the
most popular form of sports betting, both online and offline, in which the bookmaker offers
odds for sports events (Church‐Sanders, 2011). Common fixed odds bets include the win
bet, each‐way bet and place bet. Exotic bets are bets on outcomes within the game for
example, who makes the opening goal, the score at the first half, etc. Spread betting is
increasingly popular and requires accuracy rather than predicting the outcomes of an event
(Church‐Sanders, 2011). The bookmaker gives an advantage to the weaker team and the
customer bets on whether the actual outcome will be higher or lower than the sportsbook’s
prediction. Wins are determined by the difference between the operator’s prediction and
the actual result and the wager made. Parimutuel betting is a system where customers
place their bets in a pool and after the outcome of an event is known, the payout odds are
calculated and the winnings are distributed among all the winning bets, minus the fee to the
operator (Gainsbury, Sadeque, Mizerski, & Blaszczynski, 2012).
10
In live‐action betting, or in‐play gambling bets are made on real time propositions about
outcomes within a sporting event after the event has begun. Live betting has grown in
popularity and now accounts for 40‐50% of bets for some online players (Church‐Sanders,
2011). Some sports betting operators claim that live‐action betting accounts for 30‐70% of
gross margins (Church‐Sanders, 2011). Types of live‐action bets include which team will
score next, whether a play will be completed, penalties given, etc. Live‐action betting may
be riskier than fixed‐odds betting and may be more associated with gambling‐related
problems (LaPlante, Schumman, LaBrie, & Shaffer, 2008). This may be due to the high
number of bets that can be placed during a single event. Betting exchanges are sites that
create a marketplace for bettors where potential wagers are posted on certain events (with
accompanying odds and stake size) that individuals may accept (Koning & van Velzen, 2009).
Players can also ‘lay’ selection, which means predicting outcomes that will not happen. As
betting exchanges do not have to set odds, this lowers operational costs related to obtaining
information, monitoring events and creating markets; as a result betting exchanges may
have a lower operator take than wagering sites. However, to be profitable, betting
exchanges must have sufficient liquidity (active customers) to be able to attract new users.
The provision of online wagering is legally permitted under the IGA and online wagering has
become increasingly popular with the growth of Internet gambling. The Productivity
Commission (2010) estimated that there were around 424,000 active online wagering
accounts and approximately $391 million was spent on online sports wagering by
Australians in 2008. An Australian household survey in 2012 found that 63% of wagering
customers have online accounts (CLSA, 2013). In August 2013 there were approximately 342
online sports and race wagering sites accepting players from Australia (Online Casino City,
2013). The top five sports and race wagering sites accepting play from Australia ranked by
popularity in August 2013 were TAB Sportsbet, Sportsbet, TABOzBet, SportingBet Australia
and Centrebet (Online Casino City, 2013).
Industry reports indicate that online wagering is increasingly rapidly. During 2010‐11 sports
wagering on the Internet in Australia generated around $1.5 billion in turnover (Australian
Racing Board, 2011). A report by Deloitte suggested that Australian consumers are
increasingly betting with Australian online operators and the proportion of wagering
conducted with offshore providers is decreasing (Deloitte, 2012). This report included data
from H2 Gambling Capital which found that 14% of wagering turnover was undertaken with
offshore providers in 2011, compared with 30% in 2008 and 38% in 2003 (H2 Gambling
Capital as cited in Deloitte, 2012).
Online corporate bookmakers in particular have experienced increased market share since
their establishment in the mid‐1990s, with compound annual growth of 9% between 2004
and 2011 compared to approximately 4% across TAB organisations (Howard, 2011).
Nonetheless, in the third quarter of the 2012 financial year, wagering provider Tabcorp
reported an increase of 18.0% on its Internet wagering turnover in the year to date as
compared to a retail growth of 0.9%‐7.0%, and a decline in phone and on‐course betting
(Tabcorp, 2012).
11
The proportion of race bettors who use the Internet to place bets appears to be increasing.
In NSW, betting on races online increased since 2006 from 5% to 11% of punters, and
increased for sports betting from 13% to 35% (Sproston et al., 2012). In Queensland, 12% of
race bettors used the Internet and 27% of sports bettors gambled via this mode
(Queensland Government, 2012).
In Tasmania, expenditure on race wagering has trended upwards since 2003, largely
explained by the strong growth of Internet wagering by non‐Tasmanians (Allen Consulting
Group, 2011). Tasmanian thoroughbred wagering turnover from Internet wagering
increased from $3.6 million in 2004‐05 to $367 million in 2009‐10, while retail turnover
declined over this period reflecting a shift between modes of betting. However, only 25% of
TOTE Tasmania revenue was estimated to be earned from Tasmanians, representing a large
growth in activity of interstate and international bettors. However, only 2.3% of Tasmanians
reported betting on races via the Internet and 1.3% bet on sports online in the 12 months to
March 2011. Nonetheless, this represents an increase from the 1.7% who gambled on races
over the Internet in 2008 and 0.8% in 2005, with the frequency of betting online on races
also significantly increasing over this time (Allen Consulting Group, 2011).
The Tatts Group 2012 Annual Report indicated that between October 2011 and June 2012,
wagering turnover through online channels had increased by 9% and the number of
accounts purchasing wagering products each week increased by 19% (Tatts Group, 2012).
The number of accounts purchasing wagering products each week in NSW and Victoria had
increased by 62% during this period (Tatts Group, 2012).
A series of surveys were conducted by Woolley (2003) of individuals using or visiting the
website of a large Australian totalisator (pari‐mutuel) operator. The majority of participants
bet on races and less than half had bet on sports in the first round of surveys, but a year
later the sports betting participation rate had increased to 83%. Although the majority of
respondents indicated they only had one online gambling account, one‐quarter to one‐third
stated that they had multiple online gambling accounts.
An investigation of player account data analysed the wagering activity of 11,394 customers
of a large Australian totalisator wagering operator over a ten‐year period, from 2001 to
2010 (Gainsbury, Sadeque et al., 2012). On average, players were active for a period of 5.8
years during this time, bet on 45.6 days and made 717.6 bets over the life of their account.
The majority of players (91.8%) lost money overall and across all accounts on average
players lost 34.1% of the total amount wagered. Most players appeared to bet moderate
amounts, with average bet sizes ranging from $14.05 to $18.82. Customers who placed
fewer overall bets were active for a shorter period, but had a greater average minimum bet
value and average dollar amount per bet, and also lost a greater proportion of the amount
wagered as compared to more frequent bettors. A small minority of bettors accounted for
the majority of bets (top 1% of all bets placed), and lost the greatest total amount, but they
also had the lowest proportional net losses (an average loss of 19.6%). Although these
results only represent bets placed with one operator, they provide valuable insight into
12
typical betting patterns. These results are similar to figures released by a large totalisator,
Tabcorp, which reported average bet sizes of AUD$11.35 in NSW and $12.05 in Victoria
(Masters, 2011). Win bets were reported to be highly popular, representing over half of all
turnover in NSW and 42% in VIC, and 26‐44% of customers place multi‐bets. However,
without a detailed analysis of all player behaviour it is difficult to put these figures into
context.
Another investigation of player account data analysed 2,522,299 bets placed with an
Australian online wagering operator over a one‐year period by 12,900 customers (Russell &
Gainsbury, 2012). The majority of bets placed were for a win (45.31%) and were placed on
races (86.74%) or sports (11.29%). Sports betting was dominated by ball sports, reflecting
popular interest in these events. More than three‐quarters (77.63%) of the bets were losses
and there was large variation in bet size between bet types and events although average
bets were higher than in previously reported studies. The most popular bets were placed to
win and had a relatively high rate of losses as well as lowest average returns, which may
reflect less sophisticated betting behaviour. Fewer customers placed more specific handicap
and total bets but these tended to be larger bets with the greatest returns. Similarly, bets
placed on less popular events had greater average returns potentially reflecting greater
customer sophistication and knowledge, raising the possibility of a proportion of bettors
being more ‘skilled’. The majority of account holders bet at moderate levels and
experienced losses. A small number of accounts were highly involved placing large and
frequent bets, and experienced both substantial wins and losses. Customers who mostly bet
on sports placed fewer bets, but bet higher amounts and won a higher proportion than race
wagerers. The results show that interactive bettors are a heterogeneous group whose
betting is likely motivated by range of factors beyond a desire for economic returns (Russell
& Gainsbury, 2012).
2.4.3 POKER
Over the last decade, there has been an enormous increase in the popularity of poker, both
terrestrial and online (ibus media, 2011). Poker sites account for approximately 20% of all
interactive gambling sites internationally (Online Casino City, 2013). Although there were
around 530 independent poker sites in 2012, these were generally channelled into around
34 standalone poker sites and networks (Church‐Sanders, 2013). The main poker traffic is
spread amongst around 10 networks and independent sites, with the top five being
PokerStars, Full Tilt, PartyPoker, Ongame.it and the iPoker Network (Church‐Sanders, 2013).
By the end of 2013 the Internet poker market is estimated to be worth over US$3.9 billion in
terms of gross win and to rise to over US$4.6 billion by the end of 2016 (Church‐Sanders,
2013). This growth is predicted to be driven by opening of the US market on a state‐by‐state
basis, as well as further legalisation of online poker in Europe and Asia‐Pacific, which is
estimated to account for 29% of the online poker market by 2016.
13
Poker is largely played peer‐to‐peer and operators take a proportion of stakes wagered.
Online poker rooms represent a virtual card table and players are represented with
nicknames and sometimes detailed characters. The most popular variants of interactive
poker are Texas Hold’em and Omaha (Church‐Sanders, 2013). Cash or ring games allow
players to join and leave the table at any time. In comparison, tournaments require players
to buy in for a set amount, with chips evenly distributed between all players who continue
to play until one winner remains.
There are substantial differences between online poker gaming and conventional in‐person
gaming. One obvious difference is the lack of visual cues resulting in players using different
means to attempt to predict player behaviour including betting patterns, reaction time,
speed of play, etc. As interactive poker is not delayed by shuffling and dealing cards, the
rate of play is much faster than in an actual game and, depending on the site, a player might
play several tables simultaneously. Even playing at a single table of six players in a land‐
based venue, a player can expect to play approximately 30 hands an hour, compared with
75 hands per hour at an online casino (Fiedler & Rock, 2009). Online players typically play 4
to 6, or even 12 to 16, tables simultaneously (Fiedler & Rock, 2009). Poker tournaments
require a certain commitment from players in terms of time and money staked, while cash
or ring games allow players to join and leave at any time (Church‐Sanders, 2009).
According to a large scale survey of 10,838 online gamblers from 96 countries conducted in
2006, Internet poker players were most likely to be male (73.8%); aged 26‐35 (26.9%); play
2‐3 times per week (26.8%); have visited more than six poker sites in the preceding three
months (25%); have played for 2‐3 years (23.6%); play for between 1‐2 hours per session
(33.3%); and play at big blind levels (equivalent to minimum bets per hand of poker) of
$0.50 to $2.00 (61.2%) (Gainsbury, Parke, & Suhonen, 2013).
The popularity of poker in Australia has grown significantly in the last decade. Numerous
courts in international jurisdictions and within Australia, have determined that poker is a
game of skill rather than chance (Police v Jones, Police v Ravesi, 2008, SAMC 62 cited by
Gainsbury, 2010). However, despite the element of skill involved, poker is still considered a
game of chance, hence a gambling activity (Gainsbury, 2010). To play poker online,
Australians must use offshore sites as the IGA prohibits the provision of poker to Australian
residents.
The Productivity Commission (2010) claimed that interactive poker may be distinguished
readily from other interactive casino‐type games. The Productivity Commission considered
that interactive poker presented the least risk to consumers of all interactive games and
recommended that the provision of interactive poker services by Australian‐based operators
to Australian‐based consumers in a regulated environment be permitted. This
recommendation was made based on the element of skill and decision making involved in
playing poker as well as the slower speed of play and the social elements of the game
(Gainsbury, 2010). The DBCDE reached the same conclusion, although it also noted that
different forms of poker have different levels of risk due to the speed and style of the
14
games. The DBCDE’s review of the IGA (2013a) recommended that the IGA should be
amended to enable and encourage interactive gambling sites to become licensed in
Australia by enabling operators to offer tournament poker. This approach was based on the
conclusion that interactive poker, and tournament poker in particular, is dissimilar to the
most problematic forms of gambling, include an element of skill, do not produce
dissociation, and have limited prize levels. Tournament poker also has a fixed cost, provided
that players are not permitted to buy‐in after they have lost. A five‐year trial was proposed
for tournament poker that includes responsible gambling measures to test whether such an
amendment would be effective in reducing problem gambling risks as well as offshore
gambling. At the time of writing no further announcements have been made by the DBCDE
regarding the initiation of this proposed trial.
Despite the prohibition, increasing numbers of Australians are playing poker by accessing
the websites of offshore operators (ibus Media, 2011). In August 2013 there were
approximately 277 poker sites accepting players from Australia (Online Casino City, 2013).
The top five poker sites accepting play from Australia ranked by popularity in August 2013
were 888 Poker, PokerStars.eu, PKR, Betfair Poker and BetVictor Poker (Online Casino City,
2013). In 2009 there were 400,160 active online poker accounts registered to players
located in Australia (Global Betting and Gaming Consultants [GBGC], 2010). This was
estimated to increase to 657,650 active accounts by 2013. In 2004, gross gaming yield from
online poker in Australia was US$78,750,000. By 2009, GGY from online poker in Australia
was US$248,870,000 (AUD$229,336,908 July 2011) and it was estimated to increase to
US$413,980,000 by 2013 (GBGC, 2010). Details from a report by KPMG included the
DBCDE’s (2013a) review of the IGA estimated that online poker accounted for 32% of the
total amount of money gambled on prohibited online sites in Australia in 2010. Cash games
were estimated to account for 90% of this amount with 10% of the poker market
representing tournaments.
Despite increases in popularity, participation in interactive poker is still relatively low. Only
0.9% of those who had played casino table games or poker in Queensland reported using
the Internet to play poker for money in 2012 (Queensland Government, 2012). In a study of
6,682 Australian gamblers completing an online survey, 31% had played poker for money in
the past year, 8% reported playing weekly and of those who played poker, 47% played
online (Gainsbury, Hing et al., 2011). Interactive gamblers were more likely to play poker
than non‐ interactive gamblers. Interactive poker players were predominately male (96%),
64% were younger than 39 years of age, and 17% reported household incomes greater than
$150,000. The majority of interactive poker players were employed full‐time (65%) and
were not married (41%). The average online poker session was approximately 2.5 hours, but
sessions were highly variable (SD=106 minutes) and median session length was 2 hours.
Poker players reported using the Internet for an average of 70% of their poker play. Median
monthly losses for interactive poker players were only $1, suggesting most players gamble
for relatively low stakes. This was the lowest monthly reported loss for any gambling
activity, although given the large degree of variance in self‐reported expenditure and lack of
reliability of these data these expenditure results should be interpreted with caution.
15
2.4.4 CASINO GAMES AND POKIES
Online casinos were among the first gaming sites to appear on the Internet in the mid‐1990s
and in 2012 accounted for 34% of all interactive gambling sites and 13% of global gaming
gross win (Church‐Sanders, 2013). Typical interactive casino games include slot machines
and video poker games, blackjack, variations of poker, craps, roulette, baccarat, let’ em ride,
virtual racing, and Pai Gow poker. Technological innovations have resulted in an increasingly
sophisticated array of games, many of which closely replicate land‐based gaming although
others now incorporate video‐clips and other interactive features in an attempt to offer
broader entertainment value (Church‐Sanders, 2012). Customers may be required to
download software to play games, which benefits players as downloaded games typically
run faster than those played directly from the site after the initial set‐up time.
Interactive casinos generally offer odds and payback percentages that are comparable to or
better than land‐based casinos with random number generators used to ensure that the
numbers, cards, dice or symbols appear randomly. Player payback percentage or return to
player can be greater at interactive casinos as these are much cheaper to start‐up and
operate than land‐based venues, with fewer employees required (Church‐Sanders, 2012).
Games with short playing times, such as slots, appear to generate the majority of money for
interactive casino providers as more games can be played per unit of time (Church‐Sanders,
2012).
According to a large scale survey of 10,838 online gamblers from 96 countries conducted in
2006, casino game players were most likely to be female (54.8%); aged between 46‐55 years
(29.5%); play 2‐3 times per week (37.0%); have visited more than six Internet casino sites in
the preceding three months (25.0%); have played for 2‐3 years (22.4%); on average play 1‐2
hours per session (26.5%); and wager between $30‐$60 per session (18.1%) (Gainsbury,
Parke et al., 2013). The survey further revealed that the most important concerns held by
interactive casino game players focused upon financial or security issues; including good
bonus promotions, deposit methods and a solid reputation. Additionally, participants
wanted sites to include multiple games. Motivations reported for gambling on these
Internet casino sites included participating for relaxation, excitement, distraction,
opportunities to make money, and escape. Gambling for social reasons was not a
predominant motivation. Those who tended to lose more money were individuals gambling
for excitement, to relieve boredom and as a way to facilitate escaping problems.
Little is known about interactive casino play; however, estimates suggest that in most
Australian jurisdictions this activity remains low, with an estimated 0.3‐2% of adults playing
interactive casino games each year (Allen Consulting Group, 2011; Queensland Government,
2012; Sproston, et al., 2012). Despite the low reported prevalence of interactive casino
games, KPMG estimated that interactive casinos accounted for 68% of the AUD$943.8
million spent by Australians on offshore gambling sites in 2010 (DBCDE, 2013a). Of this, slot
machines accounted for 74% of the online casino expenditure; however, the accuracy of
these estimates is difficult to ascertain. In August 2013 there were approximately 837 casino
sites accepting players from Australia and 4787 different slot games available for play
16
(Online Casino City, 2013). The top five casino sites accepting play from Australia ranked by
popularity in August 2013 were Casino.com, All Slots Casino, Betfair Arcade, 888 Casino, and
Royal Vegas Online Casino (Online Casino City, 2013).
•
•
•
•
A variety of interactive gambling products are accessible to Australians through
regulated and offshore providers.
Sports betting and race wagering represent the largest sections of the interactive
gambling market in terms of participation and expenditure. The increasing use of
online wagering likely represents a combination of customers shifting from use of
retail and telephone betting as well as new customers.
The use of interactive lotteries has increased, likely due to a shift in customer’s mode
of purchasing lottery tickets. Despite being legally available online, interactive lottery
ticket purchase has not increased at the same rate as interactive wagering.
A relatively small proportion of Australians play interactive poker and casino games;
however, as this activity occurs on offshore gambling sites, it is difficult to estimate
the size of the market.
2.5 INTERACTIVE GAMBLING PREFERENCES
2.5.1 GAME PLAY PREFERENCES
Few Australian studies have examined interactive gambling preferences and the extent that
Australian players reflect international market trends and players from other jurisdictions is
unknown. A national survey of 6,682 Australian gamblers (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012)
provides significant insights into the game play preferences and gambling patterns of
interactive as compared to non‐interactive gamblers. In terms of involvement, participants
were most likely to use interactive race wagering (50.1%) and sports betting (38.8%) with
interactive casino games (15.8%), online poker (8.3%), and interactive lottery (8.0%) used by
a smaller proportion of gamblers. Amongst participants who engaged in each form of
gambling (including both interactive and land‐based), interactive wagering on sports (70.8%)
and races (70.3%) were still the most likely form of interactive gambling, although 46.8% of
poker players used interactive poker sites and 15.0% of those buying lottery tickets or
playing keno did so online. These results are not representative of all Australians so should
not be interpreted as prevalence rates for interactive gambling participation. Measurement
of the proportion of gambling conducted online for each type of activity was somewhat
problematic due to methodological limitations. Responses were based on self‐report, which
has limited value in producing highly accurate estimates of behaviour. However,
respondents who engaged in each form of gambling online indicated that they conducted
the majority of their betting online via computers, followed by land‐based agencies, online
betting via mobile phones and lastly telephones.
17
International research indicates that the majority of interactive gamblers are active in
multiple forms of gambling (American Gaming Association, 2006; Griffiths, Wardle, Orford,
Sproston, & Erens, 2009; Volberg, Nysse‐Carris, & Gerstein, 2006; Wardle et al., 2011;
Woodruff & Gregory, 2005; Wood & Williams, 2011). This was confirmed by Gainsbury,
Wood and colleagues (2012), as a higher proportion of interactive gamblers were found to
have participated in most forms of gambling surveyed compared to non‐ interactive
gamblers and interactive gamblers played a significantly greater number of different
gambling activities on average (4.86) than non‐ interactive gamblers (3.27). Significant
differences were also found in terms of gambling frequency, with interactive gamblers
engaging in gambling activities more frequently than land‐based gamblers. In terms of
length of gambling sessions, the distributions were skewed, with some players having very
long sessions. The median session of bingo lasted approximately half an hour, while the
median interactive casino visit was approximately an hour. Games of skill against others
were played in sessions lasting approximately one and a half hours, while the median
interactive poker session was around two hours.
Results from state‐based surveys provide further insight into the game play preferences of
interactive gamblers. In NSW, although participation was low (2%), 17% of interactive
casino/pokies players gambled at least weekly, with four in ten of them doing so for 1‐3
hours each session (Sproston et al., 2012). The ACT gambling prevalence study reported the
average session time for playing casino type games on the Internet was almost two and a
half hours, compared to one and one‐quarter hours in a casino venue (Davidson & Rodgers,
2010). In a survey of interactive gamblers in Tasmania, 36% reported gambling online at
least weekly, 33% gambled online 1‐3 times per month, and 32% gambled on the Internet
less than once per month (South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, 2008). By
comparison, more than half of customers of an Australian interactive sports wagering site
reported placing bets online at least weekly (Woolley, 2003). Participants from one
Australian wagering site reported mostly spending less than 1 hour per week gambling
online (53%), but those from another reported spending over 2 hours in a typical interactive
gambling session (43‐56%) (McMillen, 2004). Results from a survey of 92 Australian Internet
gamblers found that of those who bet on races online (n=73), 57% placed bets twice a
month or less, 20% participated 1‐2 times per week and 18% participated more than twice a
week (Allen Consulting Group, 2003).
Woolley (2003) found that interactive wagerers often have multiple accounts, with 26‐42%
of people involved in interactive gambling having more than one account. Online bettors
who used only one site to wager on sports and races participated less broadly and less
frequently in online gambling activity than all gamblers surveyed as a whole (Woolley,
2003). This finding highlights the heterogeneous nature of interactive gambling use and
suggests that a proportion of gamblers use multiple sites, hold multiple accounts for
interactive gambling and participate more broadly and frequently in this mode of gambling.
International research is also quite limited, although a few studies have attempted to
describe interactive gambling behaviours. Analysis of play on a European sportsbook
18
reported that median betting behaviour was to place 2.5 – 2.8 bets of €4 every fourth day
(LaBrie, LaPlante, Nelson, Schumann, & Shaffer, 2007). In a sample of North American
interactive gamblers, the average time spent gambling online each week was five hours,
although 4.1% reported gambling online in excess of 20 hours per week (Wood & Williams,
2007). Similar results were found by eCOGRA (2007) with participants reporting playing on
average 2‐3 times per week for 1‐2 hours per session.
The most recent Australian survey of gamblers found that the majority of interactive
gamblers had taken up this activity within the past five years (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012).
The vast majority of Internet gamblers (94.9%) gambled online from home and only a
minority typically gambled from work (3.2%). The majority (60.2%) reported gambling from
midday to 6pm, with a further 28.4% gambling between 6pm and midnight. The majority of
Internet gamblers preferred to use computers for Internet gambling (84.0%), with only 5.5%
of respondents stating that they preferred to gamble online with their mobile phone.
These results are similar to previous Australian research showing that the majority of
interactive gamblers appear to gamble from a computer within their own home (82‐94%)
although 4‐14% reported gambling online primarily from their workplace (McMillen, 2004).
These results are similar to the outcomes of a Canadian study, although, 16.3% of this
sample reported they occasionally gambled online from their workplace (Wood & Williams,
2007). Similar patterns of play were found by eCOGRA (2007) in a survey of international
internet gamblers, with 90% of online gamblers surveyed reporting playing primarily at
home, with the most popular time of day being in the evening (72%) followed by late at
night (53%).
•
•
•
Interactive gamblers are likely to be more involved gamblers than non‐interactive
gamblers in terms of the number of gambling activities used, frequency of gambling,
and gambling expenditure.
Use of interactive gambling differs between activities and among the heterogeneous
population of interactive gamblers.
Interactive gamblers are most likely to have started to gamble online within the past
few years, use desktop and laptop computers to bet online, and place bets during
the afternoon and evening.
2.5.2 PAYMENT METHODS
Australian interactive gamblers pay for their bets by establishing accounts with gambling
service providers. When bets are made, money is debited from these accounts, and
winnings are credited back to them. According to Online Casino City, in August 2013 there
were 210 payment methods offered by sites that accept play from Australia. The most
popular form of payment methods to be offered by gambling sites included Visa,
MasterCard, PayPal, Bank wire transfer, and Moneybookers. A survey conducted in 2003
found that interactive gamblers were most likely to pay for their online gambling using a
19
TAB account (45%) or a credit card (34%) (Allen Consulting Group, 2003). Less frequently
used payment methods included phone accounts (6%), and online payment systems (5%)
such as PayPal, Neteller or Firepay. Amongst those who played interactive poker machines
or casino games, credit card was the most popular payment method (97%).
A more recent Neilsen survey of shopping trends in 2010 revealed that PayPal is Australian’s
preferred payment method for online shopping ahead of Visa and MasterCard (eCommerce
Report, 2010). However, surveys of Australian interactive gamblers found that credit cards
are the most popular way for customers to deposit funds into their accounts, estimated to
be used by 70‐80% of all customers (Allen Consulting Group, 2012).
In their review of the IGA, the DBCDE (2013a) considered the role of credit cards. Although
some concerns were expressed that credit cards could lead to gambling more than is
affordable for some individuals, the review concluded that the use of credit cards for online
activities is now standard in Australia and there is insufficient evidence to support a ban of
credit cards specifically for interactive gambling.
2.5.3 EXPENDITURE
Estimates of expenditure on interactive gambling in Australia are difficult to generate as
these figures are not directly reported by most regulated operators that offer interactive
gambling, and are rarely reported by offshore operators. Subsequently, reports on
interactive gambling expenditure vary considerably and the dynamic nature of this market
makes it difficult to accurately estimate current expenditure.
In 2000‐01, estimates suggested that Australian consumers spent AUD$45.4 million on
interactive gambling services (Allen Consulting Group, 2003). This figure was revised to
approximately US$670 million for online casino games and poker in 2008 (Productivity
Commission, 2010) and an estimated AUD$968 million in 2010 (GBGC, 2010). According to
data from H2 Gambling Capital (as reported by the Economist, 2012), Australia has the
seventh highest Interactive gambling losses (as a proportion of total gambling losses) in the
global market, with Australians losing an estimated US$16.8 billion online in 2011
(Economist (2012). The DBCDE concluded that the total value of interactive gambling in
Australia in 2010 was more likely to be around AUD$1.6 billion, of which around 60% is
spent on prohibited services based overseas and the remainder with Australian licensed
services (DBCDE, 2013a).
Estimates demonstrate a trend of increasing expenditure on interactive mode of gambling.
A survey of 1,400 Australian households reported that interactive gambling will grow 9.8%
in 2013 and will represent 5.6% of the total gambling market by 2015 (CLSA, 2013).
Interactive gambling is the fastest growing form of gambling and the total Australian
gambling market is estimated to grow 2.7% in 2013.
Wagering appears to dominate the interactive market in terms of expenditure. Roy Morgan
Research has repeatedly reported that expenditure on all forms of gambling has declined
20
over the past few years, with the exception of interactive sports betting (Roy Morgan
Research, 2013). Industry consultants estimated that Australians lost AUD$611 million in
2011 to interactive sports betting sites, well up from the $264 million spent on interactive
sports wagering in 2006 (GBGC, 2011). Estimates suggest that Australian expenditure on
interactive sports betting had risen further from $928 in 2010 to $1.1 billion in 2012 (Roy
Morgan Research, 2013). H2 Gambling Capital estimated that 14% of Australian expenditure
on interactive wagering goes to offshore providers, with the majority of this spent on in‐play
betting which cannot be offered by licensed Australian operators (DBCDE, 2013a). A survey
of Australian interactive gamblers indicated that Australian‐licensed sites were more
popular than offshore sites for lottery and wagering products (Gainsbury, Wood et al.,
2012). However, this may also reflect the recruitment of participants directly from several
Australian wagering sites.
Figures from one company that offers interactive wagering, Tabcorp, indicate that
interactive wagering revenues have been increasing; in 2006‐07 over AUD$1 billion in
Internet sales were recorded, which further increased by 17.4% in 2007‐08 (Tabcorp, 2007,
2008). As the company developed new interactive gambling options, including a revised
sports betting website and interactive television betting product, Tabcorp reported a further
20% increase in online wagering turnover to AUD$508.4 million for the first quarter ending
September 30, 2011, accounting for 19% of the company’s total turnover during the period
(‘Tabcorp to drive online presence’, 2011). In the third quarter of the 2012 financial year (1
January to 31 March), Tabcorp reported an increase of 18.0% on its Internet wagering
turnover in the year to date as compared to the previous corresponding period. This
compared to a retail growth of only 0.9% growth in Victoria and 7.0% in New South Wales,
and a decline in phone and oncourse betting of 6.5% and 14% respectively (Tabcorp, 2012).
More recent figures indicate that Tabcorp’s digital wagering turnover grew 13.6% to $2.45
billion over the 2012/13 financial year (Tabcorp, 2013). The increased market share
accounted for by interactive forms of wagering indicates that the growth in these areas is
substantially related to a shift in customer’s betting patterns. That is, increased expenditure
on interactive wagering products is occurring with a simultaneous decrease in retail and
telephone betting.
Although interactive gambling and sports betting revenue is increasing internationally, the
Australian market appears to be very strong relative to other sectors. The interactive
gambling operator, Sportingbet, based in London and integrated with Centrebet, reported
EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation) for the financial
year ending July 31, 2011, were up to GBP 51.4 million pounds , which was an increase from
the previous year of 11%. Although revenue coming from key European markets (e.g.,
Greece and Spain) were down, in Australia, the amounts wagered on interactive betting
increased 62% in a clear demonstration of the high demand for interactive betting in this
country (Online Casino Archives, 2011). The number of active online customers was up 64%,
while the number of active telephone customers decreased by 27% in 2011 as compared to
2010 (Sportingbet Plc, 2011).
21
There is little research describing interactive gambling behaviour in terms of monetary
expenditure. Furthermore, the majority of studies on interactive gambling are based on self‐
report and self‐report of gambling expenditure is notoriously unreliable (Gainsbury, 2011;
Wood & Williams, 2007). The eCOGRA report (Gainsbury, Parke et al., 2013) found
interactive casino players on average wager between US$30‐US$60 per session (18% of the
sample) while interactive poker players most commonly play minimum stake levels of
US$0.50 to US$2.00 (61% of the sample). Amongst a sample of 40,499 interactive sports
bettors who opened an account with a European sportsbook site over an eight month
period, the typical pattern of gambling behaviour incurred a loss of 29% of the amount
wagered (LaBrie et al., 2007). Although the majority of individuals made bets of moderate
proportions (less than €5), the top 2‐3% of bettors wagered approximately €10,000 each
during the eight month period. An analysis of the top 1% of the sample based on amount
wagered found that these individuals had lower percentage losses than the rest of the
sample, suggesting that successful betting leads to continued betting and conversely, losing
discourages ongoing gambling.
Analysis of 11,394 customers of an Australian totalisator operator that offered interactive
services over a ten‐year period found differences in betting patterns between players based
on their frequency of bets (Gainsbury, Sadeque et al., 2012). Customers who placed fewer
overall bets were active for a shorter period, but had a greater average minimum bet value
($6.92 vs. $1.51), average dollars per bet ($18.82 vs. $14.05) and percentage net loss
(43.76% vs. 24.86%) than more frequent bettors. Similar to the results of LaBrie and
colleagues (2007), the top 1% of customers, in terms of the total number of bets made, lost
the greatest total amount, but the lowest overall proportion of their wagers. Preliminary
findings from an analysis of another Australian online bookmaker were consistent with the
indication that most interactive bettors place small bets. In an analysis of 11,956 accounts
that placed bets in 2010, 47% of account had made a bet of less than $1 and 73% of
accounts had made bets of less than $10 (Russell & Gainsbury, 2012). The majority of
account holders had a median bet size under $20, although some accounts placed very large
bets. These results suggest that behavioural betting patterns can be used to discriminate
between groups of bettors, but further research is needed to understand these groups in
more detail.
•
•
•
•
Obtaining accurate estimates of expenditure on interactive gambling is difficult as
gambling operators generally do not provide these data and self‐reported
expenditure is highly unreliable.
Estimates suggest that the total value of interactive gambling in Australia in 2010‐11
was approximately AUD$1.6 billion.
Around 60% of interactive gambling expenditure is estimated as spent on prohibited
services based overseas and the remainder with Australian licensed services.
Wagering accounts for the greatest proportion of the interactive market with an
estimated AUD$611 million lost in 2011.
22
•
•
The increased in expenditure via interactive forms of wagering is substantially
related to a shift in customer’s betting patterns away from retail and telephone
betting, in addition to new customers.
Preliminary evidence suggests that the majority of interactive bettors place
moderately size bets, however, a minority of highly active customers bet large
amounts.
2.6 MEDIUM PREFERENCES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
In a telephone survey conducted with 2,008 Australian adults in 2003, 96% of participants
stated that they would not use new technologies to participate in interactive gambling if
these were available (Allen Consulting Group, 2003). However, those interested in using
new technologies were equally likely to use mobile phones or interactive TV for gambling.
Even among gamblers who had previously gambled online, 71% reported that they would
not use new technologies for gambling if they were available. Technology has changed
significantly in the past ten years and interactive gambling may take place through any
device connected to the Internet including computers, tablets, mobile phones, televisions
and gaming consoles. Ownership of Internet‐enabled devices is now widespread due to the
low cost of acquiring such technology and obtaining wireless access through subscription
and prepaid options (Phillips & Blaszczynski, 2010).
2.6.1 MOBILE GAMBLING
The emergence of sophisticated handsets and advanced mobile data services allow users to
download Java‐based gambling applications over high‐speed wireless networks with video
capabilities. Although traditional websites can generally be accessed through mobile phones
connected to the Internet (smartphones), due to the small screen and keyboards of mobiles,
sites and apps have been increasingly adapted for specific use on mobile handsets (Owens,
2010).
Estimates on the size of the mobile betting market vary widely. For many years now, the
platform of mobile gambling has been heralded by the gambling industry as the ‘next big
thing’ to revolutionise the nature of interactive gambling. Factors that have inhibited the
growth of mobile gambling include the lack of reliable and high quality networks, slow and
small devices, difficulty in application availability and delivery as well as payment for
customers, a lack of consumer confidence and regulatory restrictions (H2 Gambling Capital,
2011; iGaming Business, 2011). However, lower cost mobile devices, improved
infrastructure, and the dissemination of tablets have led to massive growth in the mobile
market.
H2 Gambling Capital reported that the mobile gambling market accounted for 10.5% of the
interactive market and 0.9% of total yields at the end of 2012 (H2 Gambling Capital, 2013).
This is expected to grow to 12.8% and 16.2% respectively by 2014, demonstrating that
23
mobile betting may be associated with greater revenues than other forms of interactive
gambling. Juniper Research (2012) reported that the total value of mobile gambling,
including casinos, betting and lottery, was US$19.5 billion in 2011, and predicted that this
market would be worth more than USD$100 billion by 2017. Sports betting (including race
wagering) accounts for the majority of mobile gambling, although mobile casino games are
expected to rise, particularly in the US as various states move towards legalisation of online
poker, and mobile lotteries are also experiencing growth (Juniper Research, 2012).
An international study in 2011 reported that Australia had the second highest smartphone
penetration in the world, behind Singapore, and that smartphone penetration is forecast to
increase significantly through to 2015 when it is estimated that 77% of Australians will use
smartphones (Telsyte, 2011). In 2011 it was estimated that 51% of Australian households
own a smartphone, and a further 18% own Internet capable mobile non‐smartphones
(Nielsen, 2012). In 2011, smartphone ownership was highest among 25 to 34 year olds
(73%), followed by 16 to 24 year olds (69%) and 35 to 44 year olds (59%). Accessing the
Internet when out of home and while on public transport is also increasing and is most
prevalent for males and consumers aged less than 35 years (Nielsen, 2012). These groups
are similar to the core demographics most likely to be active interactive gamblers
(Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Queensland Government, 2012; Sproston et al., 2012).
This high level of mobile penetration has led many Australian gambling operators to launch
mobile applications. Betting operators are encouraging customers to engage through mobile
devices by increasing relevant content, for example, by streaming vision of races through
these channels. Australian mobile wagering is predicted to reach AUD$9.22 billion by 2014,
accounting for 32% of the total wagering market (Sher, 2012). The Tatts Online Android
mobile app was launched in March 2012 and generated over $4 million in turnover with
6,800 downloads by June 30, 2012 (Tatts Group, 2012). In June 2012, over 19% of visitors to
Tatts.com were using mobile devices, demonstrating the popularity of this mode of access.
Similarly, in 2011/12 Tabcorp reported that 20% of its interactive wagering turnover was
placed through mobile devices and mobile betting accounted for 43% of Tabcorp’s digital
turnover in the second half of the 2012/13 fiscal year, up from 28% in the first half (Tabcorp,
2012; 2013). Tabcorp reported that its TAB iPhone, iPad and Android apps have been
downloaded more than 900,000 times. Sportsbet reported even higher figures with mobile
revenue accounting for 42% of their online revenue, and 59% of digital customers using
transactions on mobile platforms, including tablets (Sher, 2013).
A survey of 6,682 Australian gamblers in 2011 found that only 5.5% of interactive gamblers
reported preferring to use their mobile phone to gamble online (Gainsbury, Wood et al.,
2012). However, amongst interactive gamblers who bet on sports or races, mobile phones
and wireless devices accounted for an average of approximately 22‐23% of all bets placed.
An Australian household survey found that online wagering account holders were more
likely to own a smartphone, however, this difference was not material suggesting that
smartphone ownership is not a big driver of online wagering accounts (CLSA, 2013).
24
One significant factor limiting the growth of mobile betting in Australia is the prohibition of
live betting, which is not permitted via interactive channels. The DBCDE recommended that
this prohibition be amended in the review of the IGA to enable bets to be placed on
outcomes after an event has begun, but this would not include the majority of proposition
bets placed on events within a game/match. Although up to 30% of bets on mobile are on
live events internationally (iGaming Business 2011), Australian operators will be unable to
offer these products via mobile channels.
2.6.2 INTERACTIVE TELEVISION
Gambling through interactive television can take multiple forms including directly gambling
on sporting events such a horse racing and football using a television remote control, and
using a remote control to place bets on casino games such as blackjack and poker, or to
participate in a skill‐game such as puzzles, word games and trivia questions. Interactive
television lends itself most obviously to wagering and channels can be offered to digital
subscribers, typically run in conjunction with racing and sports channels. Betting services
can tell viewers when the next event will be aired and what betting opportunities are
available.
Australia’s Two Way Limited launched its TAB ACTIVE interactive TV betting service in all
mainland states of Australia. This allows viewers of all three Sky Racing channels on Foxtel
cable television service to use the service to access all the current day’s racing and wagering
information, including a full form guide and results. The service also allows customers to
place bets via their existing wagering account with their local TAB operator (Tabcorp,
TattsBet, and Racing and Wagering Western Australia). In the first year after its launch in
April 2008, more than 22,400 users placed at least one bet, turnover exceeded AUD$81
million and 3,000 users were betting each week. In 2010 Tab Active was only available in
Sydney and Melbourne, but it was already generating around 2% of Tabcorp’s remote
betting turnover. At the end of June 2011, total turnover had exceeded AUD$141 million
and 16 million bets in total had been placed through the service with an average number of
16,060 bets per day (Twoway Interactive Entertainment, 2011). In 2013, Tabcorp purchased
Tab Active.
A survey of 6,682 Australian gamblers in 2011 found that only 1.5% of interactive gamblers
reported preferring to use their television to gamble online (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012).
Amongst interactive gamblers who bet on sports or races, interactive television accounted
for an average of approximately 1‐2% of all bets placed. Internationally, interactive
television also represents a minority of interactive gambling services. Prevalence data from
the UK indicates that only 1.4% of respondents placed bets using interactive or digital
television gambling accounts (Johan, 2011). In France, Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU, the French
totaliser monopoly) reported its interactive TV wagering service had five times the turnover
of PMU mobile in 2008 (€31.7 million), accounting for 4.3% of total remote betting turnover
(Reichel, 2010).
25
2.6.3 GAMING CONSOLES
Household ownership of games consoles or handheld game devices declined during 2011,
with 49% of online Australian homes owning these devices (Nielsen, 2012). Fewer than one
in five Australians who are active online have accessed the Internet via a games console
(18%) (Nielsen, 2012). Many recently released forms of video gaming consoles allow users
to connect to the Internet, which provides further opportunities for interactive gambling.
Connecting gaming consoles to the Internet has moved betting on video games from
between friends in a lounge room to making wagers between people all over the world.
Video betting sites allows players with almost any gaming console to create, enter and bet
on tournaments for almost any video game such as the popular Call of Duty and Madden
NFL games. The betting site acts as an intermediary, organising the tournaments, collecting
the stakes and distributing the final prize to the winner. The amount of money the players
may win is dependent on the number of players involved. Gaming consoles are monitored
by the site in an effort to prevent players from cheating.
Virgin Gaming allows video gamers to wager on the outcome of their video game challenges
and challenge other members to multiplayer games in exchange for cash (Hsu, 2010). Virgin
tracks the players as they play on an Xbox 360 or PS3, ensuring that no one is cheating. The
winner is paid up to tens of thousands of dollars and Virgin takes a small commission of the
winnings. The Virgin system only allows organised tournaments, meaning players can buy
into a tournament and then play for the ultimate win, although developments will allow for
game‐by‐game wagering, allowing gamers to create their own tournaments and challenge
others for cash prizes. In January 2011, Virgin Gaming reported that it has 170,000 users
from 30 countries signed up to use its online service (Powell, 2011). A report in November
2012 claimed that $23 million had been gambled by players via this service (Golding, 2012).
The terms and conditions provided by Virgin Gaming state that players must be at least 18
years old and be a resident in a jurisdiction where skilled gaming is legal, however, age
verification is not required to create an account, make deposits, place bets and withdraw
funds. As chance is not involved and games are determined based on skill, video gaming,
where players bet on the outcome of their game, is classified as skilled gaming rather than
gambling (Hsu, 2010). Resources are provided for gaming addiction and responsible
gambling and players can set limits on their betting. The extent to which gaming consoles
are used for interactive gambling in Australia is not known.
2.6.4 DESKTOP, LAPTOP AND TABLET COMPUTERS
Access to Internet‐capable technology is highly prevalent in Australian homes. Desktop
computers are the most popular form of computers, although household ownership of
desktops decreased from 82% in 2010 to 76% in 2011, showing a reduced reliance on this
form of technology (Nielsen, 2012). In contrast, laptop ownership in Australian households
increased from 73% to 83% over the same time. However, tablet computers (e.g., iPads,
Samsung Galaxy, and other similar devices) have had rapid growth, from 8% ownership in
Australian homes in 2010 to 18% in 2011, forecast to reach 39% in 2012 (Nielsen, 2012).
26
Older Australians are less likely to own tablet computers, with 25 to 34 year olds the most
likely age group to own a tablet computer. Desktop and laptop computers are still the
dominant devices used to access the Internet, although access via other devices is growing
(Nielsen, 2012). This also reflects the tendency for Australians to access the Internet from
their home.
Given these patterns, it is likely that the majority of Australian interactive gamblers also use
computers for online gambling. An Australian survey of 6,682 gamblers found that 95% of
interactive gamblers reported primarily using a home computer to gamble online, with a
further 3.2% using a work computer (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). The vast majority of
interactive gamblers reported a preference for using computers to gamble online (84%),
with only 2.8% of interactive gamblers preferring to use wireless devices such as tablets.
This is consistent with previous Australian research as well as international research, for
example a large survey of over 12,000 international gamblers found that 93% of Internet
gamblers used a home computer for gambling online (Allen Consulting Group, 2003; Wood
& Williams, 2010).
•
•
•
•
•
•
Australia has a high rate of smartphone penetration, particularly among cohorts that
are likely to engage in interactive gambling.
Mobile betting is increasing internationally and in Australia and is driving a
substantial proportion of interactive wagering.
Interactive television in Australia is primarily used for race betting, and similarly to
other international jurisdictions, it accounts for a small proportion of interactive
wagering.
The increased use of gaming consoles with Internet connections and interest in
online gambling and gaming has led to game operators partnering with online
gambling providers to bet on the outcome of games arguably determined by skill.
Personal computers are the dominant way Australians access interactive gambling
sites and place bets online.
Tablets are increasingly used for interactive wagering purposes, which is consistent
with their use as a ‘second screen’ for other entertainment activities.
2.7 MOTIVATIONS FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Interactive gambling has certain features that differentiate it from traditional land‐based
gambling and that play a role in motivations for engaging in this form of gambling
(Monaghan, 2009). These reflect the perceived advantages of interactive gambling
compared to land‐based gambling.
27
2.7.1 ADVANTAGES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
The most obvious attributes of interactive gambling are the greater convenience, comfort
and ease of access, which are cited as the primary reason for gambling online in multiple
studies (American Gaming Association, 2006; Griffiths & Barnes, 2008; Wood, Williams &
Lawton, 2007). Amongst a small sample of British university interactive gamblers, additional
reasons given included flexibility of use, 24 hour availability, peer and familial influences,
large variety of gambling choices, advertising, anonymity, and demo games (Griffiths &
Barnes, 2008). In an American Gaming Association (2006) study, participants reported
gambling online because it was fun, exciting and entertaining, offered the opportunity to
win money, and for anonymity and privacy. In a Canadian study, youth (aged 12‐24)
described gambling online to relieve boredom and for excitement (McBride, 2006). Other
desirable features of interactive gambling reported by an international sample of online
gamblers include a dislike of the atmosphere and clientele of land‐based venues, a
preference for the pace and nature of interactive game‐play and the potential for higher
wins and lower overall expenditures when gambling online (Wood, Williams et al., 2007).
Few studies have considered the psychology of interactive gambling, which is relevant as
the online environment has a substantial impact on gambling behaviour. For example, the
ability to pretend to be the opposite sex has also been cited as a significant advantage, with
women pretending to be males to be taken more seriously and for a greater sense of
security, and males pretending to be females for supposed tactical advantages (Griffiths,
2003). Despite the physical isolation of interactive gambling, many operators recognise the
desire for social activity and provide social features, such as live chat during play and
discussion forums, which enable gamblers to interact with each other. A study of 409
Finnish interactive gamblers found that even if social interaction is not necessary in order to
play, it is meaningful in players’ experience of the game (Kinnunen, Rautio, Alha, &
Paavilainen, 2012). Interviews with American online gamblers also indicated that, although
other gamblers were not physically present, many participants put effort into how they
presented themselves online, and that they could play the part of a different character to
their normal selves (Siemens & Kopp, 2011). Environmental cues are likely to significantly
impact interactive gambler’s motivation to engage in this mode of gambling.
A recent Australian survey examined the advantages of interactive gambling (Gainsbury,
Wood et al., 2012). Most interactive gamblers saw the fact that they do not have to drive
anywhere or leave the house (54.9%) as an advantage over gambling in a facility, followed
by 24 hour availability and convenience (46.2%) and the lack of crowds (31.4%), unpleasant
people (29.5%) and greater privacy and anonymity (28.4%). Physical comfort was also an
important factor (28.5%). The first two advantages listed were also the most common
responses as to why respondents started gambling on the Internet in the first place. Lower
secondary costs, less noise and higher payout rates were noted as advantages by
approximately one‐fifth of interactive gamblers. Land‐based gambling being unavailable or
28
illegal was nominated as an advantage by approximately 2% of interactive gamblers. The
most popular reasons for choosing one Internet gaming site over another were: general
reputations (33.0%), payout rates (27.7%), and monetary deposits being safe with wins paid
out in a timely fashion (23.2%) (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). Bonuses and incentives and
superior game interfaces were nominated by approximately 11% of interactive gamblers as
a motivator for choosing a particular site, with legality, the country a site is based in,
software used and personal recommendations indicated by 10% or fewer of interactive
gamblers.
These results are similar to previous Australian studies of interactive gambling. An
Australian household survey in 2012 found that the key driver of online wagering accounts
was convenience, rather than better odds (CLSA, 2013). Interviews with interactive poker
and casino players indicated that the prominent motivation to gambling online for these
participants was to win money, for entertainment, anonymity, escapism and boredom
(Kapcelovich, 2010). According to an older ACG Internet Gambling Survey, convenience was
the prime motivation (77%) for using the Internet to gamble (Allen Consulting Group, 2003).
Few interactive gamblers reported gambling online to obtain better value for money, which
may reflect the tendency of the participants to use operators that offer the same odds as
those in the agency, over the phone or on course. Approximately 10% of participants stated
being motivated by the ability to access more information and details, that it was easier
(5%), safer (4%), that there were better payouts (3%), and 2% of interactive gamblers
reported gambling online due to a disability. The small number of interactive poker machine
and casino game players reported similar reasons, although the majority of these stated
that they did not prefer participating in this activity online as compared to a land‐based
venue.
2.7.2 DISADVANTAGES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Despite the advantages cited for interactive gambling, perceived disadvantages may
preclude gamblers from using this mode. International research shows that consumers
mistrust gambling websites, with even interactive gamblers concerned about site fairness
and security (Ipsos Reid, 2005; Wood & Williams, 2010; Woodruff & Gregory, 2005).
Concerns regarding fair play practices may be reasonable as there are numerous examples
of interactive gambling sites not paying winnings, cheating players with unfair games, or
stealing deposits and personal details (Gainsbury, 2012; McMullan & Rege, 2010). An audit
of 30 online casino and poker sites available to Australians found that only seven of these
provided a clear policy regarding player account history, although 90% provided clear game
rules and 97% included links to payment provider websites and general terms and
conditions, indicating an understanding of the importance of providing players with this
information (Kapcelovich, 2010).
In a survey of 10,838 international interactive gamblers in 2006, the most commonly
reported problems were being disconnected (66.1% of participants reported experiencing
this at least sometimes) and/or software malfunctions (53.2%) (Gainsbury, Parke et al.
29
2013). Over one‐third of respondents reported having a dispute at some point with an
operator, with fewer than half reporting successful resolutions. The least common problem
was ‘not being paid at all’ with 25.8% of participants ever experiencing this difficulty.
Approximately half of all participants reported that they had confidence in the integrity of
online gambling software and only half of all participants (49.5%, n = 8656) agreed or
strongly agreed that online gambling software was fair. Slightly less than half of respondents
(44.9%, n = 8593) agreed or strongly agreed that random number generators actually
determine gambling outcomes randomly. However, when asked if ‘online gambling sites
have an on/off switch that can turn the software in favor of the operator’, 37.6% of
respondents (n = 8647) either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Among
respondents who thought that poker sites were unfair or that they cheat, the most common
way to deal with this was to ‘play only on well‐known sites’ (with 86.8% of respondents
doing so at least sometimes) and to ‘watch out for unusual behaviour’ (also with 86.8%
doing so at least sometimes). Participants also reported seeking out well known software
providers (70.3%) and third party assurances (59.4%) at least sometimes as strategies to
avoid being cheated. Participants were least likely to play on smaller sites to counter any
potential problems with cheating, with 67.9% reporting that they rarely or never do this.
In another international survey, 36% of interactive gamblers (n=1,954) reported difficulty
verifying the fairness of games, and 25% were concerned about safety of their funds (Wood
& Williams, 2010). Other gamblers (19%) reported that it was easier to spend more money
online indicating the potential for players to spend more than they intended. Internet
gambling may also reduce social aspects of gambling for some players (McCormack &
Griffiths, 2012a; Wood & Williams, 2010).
In the most recent Australian survey, the main perceived disadvantages of interactive
gambling were that it is too convenient (29.9%) and that it is easier to spend more money
(27.8%) (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). Approximately 15% of interactive gamblers
indicated that online gambling had a poorer social atmosphere and was more addictive than
land‐based gambling. Only a minority of interactive gamblers were concerned with the
security of deposits, the certainty of payouts, the legality of interactive gambling, or the
country in which a site is based, despite many reporting that they play on offshore sites.
•
•
•
•
The most commonly cited advantages of interactive gambling over land‐based
gambling include the convenience and ease of access of this mode of gambling.
Additional advantages of interactive gambling include greater physical comfort,
privacy and anonymity, and greater gambling returns.
Interactive gambling is perceived to be too convenient and more addictive by some
gamblers, and that it is easier to spend money.
Additional concerns about interactive gambling include the poorer atmosphere,
mistrust of online operators and other players and the safety of player deposits.
30
2.8 TRANSITION FROM TERRESTRIAL GAMBLING TO INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Despite the many similarities between interactive and terrestrial gambling, interactive
gambling does possess unique features (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). Interactive gambling
is highly accessible and convenient; sites operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week and can
be accessed through a variety of devices wherever Internet connections, including 3G and
4G networks, are available. Although customers are required to identify themselves to
operators and provide payment details, usernames enable play to be relatively anonymous
and players can create any type of persona they wish. Interactive gambling can be either
solitary, with no interaction with other players or staff, or relatively social by utilising chat
functions and message boards. Gambling sites typically offer a vast selection of games and
products, often including a mix of gambling genres; for example, a sports wagering site
enables bets to be placed on numerous international events but may also offers casino and
poker as side products for customers. Odds and player returns are typically very competitive
and more rewarding than those offered by terrestrial operators, due to the lower overheads
and costs of running an Internet site. Similarly, players can place very small bets, and play
against a much larger pool of customers, than would be ever available at any single
terrestrial venue. As customers use an account for all betting, details of play history, bets,
losses, withdrawals and deposits are readily available to assist customers to track their
gambling. Customers can also have multiple accounts with different operators. Moreover, in
comparison to the relative geographical restrictions that are endemic to terrestrial
gambling, Internet gamblers enjoy the ease of rapid movement from one Internet site to
another.
Terrestrial operators and regulators have expressed concerns that interactive gambling will
successfully compete with existing gambling venues, resulting in customers migrating from
these forms, and reducing related revenue and taxes (Gainsbury & Wood, 2011). However,
although interactive gambling has been available for over a decade, and has increased in
popularity, there is remarkably little evidence to enhance our understanding of how
customers may transition from terrestrial to interactive modes of gambling. Due to few
adequate research studies, secondary sources of information are examined, including
industry reports of revenue and turnover.
Evidence from a variety of sources indicates that much of the increase in interactive
gambling can be attributed to transition from terrestrial forms. A research study that
included online surveys of account holders of Australian wagering sites found increased
interactive wagering over a two year period (2001‐2003) as many patrons moved from
telephone to interactive gambling (McMillen, 2004). Furthermore, participants reported
increased use of interactive gambling with offshore providers, indicating that gambling
online with one provider may increase exploration of other gambling sites. In a study
conducted in 2003, the majority (76%) of Australian interactive gamblers surveyed believed
31
that their interactive gambling was likely to remain stable over the next few years (Allen
Consulting Group, 2003). However, 16% reported that they thought their interactive
gambling would increase, compared to 7% who thought that it would decrease over time.
Findings of the ACG Internet Gambling Survey suggested that in 2003, approximately 50% of
interactive gambling turnover was substituting from more traditional means, such as
telephone betting, and around 50% represented additional gambling activity (Allen
Consulting Group, 2003). Further, this survey found that all respondents who were
interactive gamblers had previously engaged in a more traditional form of gambling.
Correlational analyses between those who participate in offline gambling and the likelihood
of participating in interactive gambling suggests that gamblers who bet with a TAB or
bookmaker were four to five times more likely than the general population to engage in
interactive gambling. The migration from lotteries and poker machines appeared to be
much less significant. Of those interviewed in 2003, interactive gamblers were much more
likely (72%) to know someone personally who gambled online than non‐ interactive
gamblers (11%) and non‐gamblers (7%) (Allen Consulting Group, 2003). Interactive gamblers
reported that the person that they knew who gambled online was a friend or acquaintance
(53%) or a spouse/partner (14%). This finding may indicate that interactive gamblers may be
introduced to this mode of gambling by someone they know, which may lead to ongoing
participation.
In a small study with 25 female interactive gamblers in the UK, six of the participants were
first introduced to interactive gambling by friends or family, one participant started by
buying lottery tickets online, which led to scratch cards and then other gambling sites
(Corney & Davis, 2010). Nine participants indicated that they started interactive gambling as
an impulsive response to an advertisement, pop‐up, or promotion in a newspaper, on
television, or on the Internet. Three participants reported that they began playing bingo
online following changes in legislation that prohibited smoking in bingo halls.
Recent reports from Australian licensed wagering companies suggests that interactive
wagering is increasing at the expense of retail and telephone betting following a shift in how
customers are placing bets. The Australian Racing Board noted that, although phone betting
is still twice the volume of interactive betting, the growth in interactive betting is much
stronger (Australian Racing Board, 2012). Similarly, in 2011/12 Tabcorp’s online wagering
operations generated $2.16 billion in turnover, growing by 14.5% compared to the prior
year. Betting turnover via call centres was down 6.8%, and on‐course betting was down
6.3%.
The online Australian gambling survey conducted in 2010‐11 found that interactive
gamblers still typically engaged in some land‐based and telephone betting. Of those who
had gambled online at least once in the previous year, terrestrial agencies accounted for
only 30% of sports betting and 33% of race wagering and the telephone was used for 11.0%
of sports and 13% of race wagering (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). Interactive gamblers also
reported that they engaged multiple modes for other forms of gambling, although they
32
reported using the Internet for the bulk of gambling including buying lottery tickets (60%),
playing bingo (60%), playing games of skill (65%) and playing poker (71%).
•
•
•
A substantial proportion of the growth of interactive gambling can be attributed to
existing customers transitioning to interactive modes from retail and telephone
betting.
Interactive gamblers are likely to be referred to this mode of gambling by friends and
family members.
Most interactive gamblers still engage in various forms of land‐based gambling.
2.9 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Much of what is currently known about interactive gamblers is primarily descriptive in
nature and based upon convenience samples, which may not be representative of the entire
population of interactive gamblers. Data from international jurisdictions may also not be
directly applicable to Australia given the different legal status of the various forms of
interactive gambling elsewhere, and cultural differences between populations.
Furthermore, interactive gamblers are a heterogeneous group and research to date has
largely considered this population as a whole, without adequate consideration of subgroups
and differences between players. Nonetheless, research does suggest that interactive
gamblers do have characteristics that differ in general from the population of land‐based
gamblers.
2.9.1 GENDER
Interactive gambling in Australia appears to be more popular among males (Allen Consulting
Group, 2003; Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Levine, 2010; Queensland Government, 2012;
Phillips & Blaszczynski, 2010; Woolley, 2003), consistent with international findings
(Gainsbury, Parke et al., 2013; Wood & Williams, 2010). One study reported that males are
more than twice as likely to gamble online as women (Nielsen Online, 2008). The
Queensland Gambling Household Survey 2011‐12 reported that 9% of men reported having
gambled on the Internet in the past 12 months compared to 6% of women (Queensland
Government, 2012). The NSW gambling prevalence survey reported that 3% of men had
gambled online in the past 12 months compared to 1% of women surveyed (Sproston et al.,
2012).
Despite the apparent dominance of males in online gambling, there may be a shift towards
an increasing number of women gambling online (Corney & Davis, 2010; McMillen &
Woolley, 2003). Several surveys have found women reported they would prefer to gamble
online than in traditional venues as it was viewed as safer, less intimidating, anonymous,
more fun and more tempting (Carpenter, 2005; Griffiths, 2001). The convenience of
interactive gambling and ability to play for short periods of time may also be appealing to
women who take breaks from other responsibilities to play (Corney & Davis, 2010).
33
Longitudinal studies in Sweden also indicate that the gap between men and women in terms
of the proportion of interactive gambling has decreased over time (Svensson & Romild,
2011). An online survey of 6,682 Australian gamblers found that female gender was a
significant predictor of interactive gambling (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). However, the
participants in this study were not representative of all Australian gamblers or interactive
gamblers and only 13.7% of participants were female, so these results must be interpreted
with caution.
2.9.2 AGE
Among interactive sport and race bettors on one Australian site, most gamblers were aged
between 35‐54 years old (Woolley, 2003). Older individuals (aged 65 and above) were
substantially under‐represented among interactive bettors, possibly reflecting a lower use
of this technology. Roy Morgan Research polls similarly report that interactive bettors are
more likely to be aged 35 to 64, as compared to the total Australian adult population
(Levine, 2010). The Queensland Gambling Household Survey 2011‐12 found that those aged
55 years or less were more likely to have gambled using the Internet than those aged 55
years or more (8% of those aged 18–34 years, 10% of those aged 35–54 years and 4% of
those aged 55 years or more) (Queensland Government, 2012). Males aged 18‐54 years had
the highest rates of interactive gambling use compared to other age cohorts. Similarly, 11%
of NSW males aged 18‐24 reported gambling on interactive casino games or pokies,
followed by 4% of males aged 25‐34 and 3% of males aged 35‐44 compared to 2% of
females aged 18‐34 and 1% or less in all other age/gender categories (Sproston et al., 2012).
An Australian household survey in 2012 found that younger wagering customers were more
likely to have online accounts, suggesting that the penetration of online wagering accounts
will increase as the population ages (CLSA, 2013). According to this survey, online betting
account holders were most likely to be aged 26‐35 years of age, although strong growth was
evidence for those aged 18 to 25 years and 46 to 55 years.
2.9.3 EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND MARITAL STATUS
An Australian survey of 6,682 gamblers found that more interactive gamblers were married
compared to non‐interactive gamblers, while more non‐interactive gamblers tended to be
divorced or separated or never married, compared to interactive gamblers (Gainsbury,
Wood et al., 2012). In terms of employment status, a higher proportion of interactive
gamblers were employed full‐time and a lower proportion of interactive gamblers were
employed part‐time, unemployed, homemakers and full‐time students. However, when
controlling for each variable, being unemployed or a full‐time student was a significant
predictor of being an interactive gambler. In terms of income, the pattern of results
suggests that interactive gamblers had higher incomes than non‐interactive gamblers.
Approximately 15% of interactive gamblers reported household incomes over $150,000, in
comparison to a proportion of 10% among non‐ interactive gamblers. Additionally, there
was a greater proportion of interactive gamblers in each household income bracket over
34
$50,000. Higher household income was also a significant predictor of being an interactive
gambler.
The 2011‐12 Queensland Gambling Household Survey (Queensland Government, 2012)
reported that interactive gambling was more common among those who had higher levels
of education, including university education or a trade or technical certificate/diploma.
Interactive gambling was lowest among those whose highest educational attainment was
primary school. Those who were full‐time workers or self‐employed were more likely to
have gambled using the Internet than those who were not in the paid workforce (9% of
those working full‐time or self‐employed, 5% of those not in the paid workforce). Interactive
gambling was more likely to be used by those with personal annual income over $34,000.
NSW prevalence figures found interactive gambling on casino and pokies equally common in
the highest and lowest income brackets (Sproston et al., 2012). People of Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander were more likely to have gambled on interactive casino games or
pokies (4%) than non‐indigenous respondents (2%).
Roy Morgan Research found in 2003 that students were over‐represented in the cohort of
Internet gamblers relative to their representation in the adult population and in contrast to
other findings, that among Internet users, people with low levels of education were
relatively more likely to engage in interactive gambling (Allen Consulting Group, 2003). The
same research found that single people were over‐represented amongst Internet gamblers
and online gamblers were more likely to have higher discretionary expenditure than the
general adult population. Based on age and gender analysis, men and young people were
more likely to participate in a range of Internet gambling activities, compared to women and
those aged over 35, who were both more likely to bet on races online.
The socioeconomic status of Australian online gamblers appears to be higher than average
(Levine, 2010; Woolley, 2003), similar to findings from the US (American Gaming
Association, 2006). International research suggests that a sizeable percentage of online
gamblers belong to professional or managerial occupations, have completed at least some
tertiary education, and use the Internet for other activities including conducting business
and purchasing transactions over the Internet (America Gaming Association, 2006; Wood &
Williams, 2007; Woolley, 2003).
2.9.4 YOUTH
Interactive gambling represents a significant risk for youth as gate‐keeping techniques
currently in place are largely ineffective in preventing youth from gambling online. Many
easily accessible interactive gambling sites have minimal provisions to prevent youth from
gambling and underage youth may also use a friend or family member’s account, or credit
card and identification to gain access (Monaghan, 2009). A study conducted in the UK found
that a 16 year‐old was able to place bets online on 81% (30 out of 37) of sites tested and a
European survey found that 17% of visitors to online gambling sites were under the age of
18 (NetValue, 2002). Another investigation of 30 interactive gambling websites in the UK
35
found that only half of these made significant attempts to verify the age of players (Smeaton
& Griffiths, 2004). A similar study of 30 interactive casino and poker sites available to
Australians found that only nine of these had a clear policy on restricting gambling by
individuals aged under 18 years of age, although most sites required proof of age to
withdraw funds (Kapcelovich, 2010). Youth are familiar and comfortable with interactive
and anonymous electronic media and use the Internet for a multitude of social,
entertainment, educational, and business interactions. Although age verification has
progressed in terms of its sophistication and prevalence for interactive gambling sites, given
the anonymity and absence of interpersonal interaction characteristic of interactive
gambling, it remains a challenge to limit underage gambling.
The prevalence of interactive gambling among youth is difficult to estimate as individuals
under the age of 18 are often not included in population surveys and young adults
increasingly use mobile phones, rather than landlines, making it difficult to capture this
population in telephone surveys (Gainsbury, 2010). International studies have found high
rates of interactive gambling among youth (Griffiths & Barnes, 2008; McBride & Derevensky,
2009; Olason et al., 2011). Furthermore, international studies indicate that interactive
gamblers are more likely to be younger adults (Griffiths et al., 2009; Wood & Williams,
2010).
Similarly high rates of interactive gambling have been found in samples of university
students. For example, a US study of college undergraduates found that 23% had gambled
online, with 6.3% doing so weekly (Petry & Weinstock, 2007). Increased frequency of
interactive gambling has also been associated with problem gambling and mental health
issues. Young adult interactive problem gamblers reported losing more money per month
and spending more money than they intended (Wood, Griffiths, & Parke, 2007). Compared
to non‐ interactive gamblers, interactive gamblers are more likely to be younger, male, have
poorer grades, wager on more types of activities, and wager more money and more often
(Griffiths & Barnes, 2008; Petry & Weinstock, 2007).
Australian school‐based studies have found that adolescents may gamble online at higher
rates than the general population (Delfabbro, Lahn, & Grabosky, 2005; Dowling, Jackson,
Thomas, & Frydenberg, 2010; Jackson, Dowling, Thomas, Bond & Patton, 2008). A 2003‐
2004 study involving more than 900 secondary school students from 18 schools in the ACT
reported that 6.1% of students had gambled on the Internet in the past year (Delfabbro et
al., 2005). In another study with 2,766 eighth‐grade students (mean age 14 years) from 26
schools in Victoria, 4% had engaged in interactive gambling in the past year, with males
significantly more likely to be engaging in this behaviour (Jackson et al., 2008).
A study of 612 youth (aged 12‐18) selected from secondary schools in Victoria (Dowling et
al., 2010) found that 4.1% had gambled online at least once and 1.8% gambled online once a
month or more often. Sports betting rates were 13.7% (at least once) and 3.3% (once a
month or more often). When asked who they gambled online with, 41.2% reported
gambling alone, 11.8% with parents, 2.9% with siblings, 11.8% with other relatives and
36
41.2% with friends. Within the sample, 4.4% were classified as at‐risk gamblers and 0.7% as
problem gamblers. In the same study, 823 students aged between 18 and 25 years, from
tertiary institutions in Victoria, were surveyed. The majority (91%) had never gambled
online; 3% had gambled online 1‐2 times per year, 2% every few months or once a month,
1% 2‐3 times a month and 3% once a week or more often. Within this sample 15% were
low‐risk, 11.3% moderate risk and 3.4% were problem, gamblers respectively.
In a study of interactive gambling amongst university students in Tasmania, 148 students
who had gambled online in the last three months volunteered to complete an online survey
(Ly, 2010). The majority of participants were male (73%), born in Australia (76%), single
(54.8%) and had a mean age of 25 years. The students gambled online at least once a week
(38.5%), once a fortnight (19.6%) or once a month (14.2%) and 40% reported gambling for
more than one hour in most sessions. Most appeared to have first gambled online after they
turned 18 years old as the mean age of first gambling online was 21.77 years, although the
standard deviation was 7.08, so it is possible some participants gambled online before they
were 18.
The most popular online games were poker (35%), followed by sports wagering (28%). Both
Australian (49.7%) and international sites (24.1%) were used. Students reported gambling
online for enjoyment (64.2%), for money (49.3%), to relieve boredom (30.4%) or experience
a ‘rush’ (16.2%), and for prizes (5.4%). Of those who preferred gambling online, convenience
was cited as the most common reason, compared to the social atmosphere preferred by
those who gambled at venues. A substantial proportion of participants appeared to have
significant gambling problems (10.8%) or be at moderate‐risk of gambling problems (15.5%).
Gambling at venues appeared to predict problem gambling severity, indicating that youth
engaging in multiple forms of gambling may be at greater risk for problems. However, these
results are from a small, self‐selected sample, which limits the extent to which results can
be generalised. Furthermore, only 10% played for money every session and the majority
appeared to gamble with free credits, which may mean that they are not representative of
interactive gamblers.
Research on interactive gambling among adolescents and young adults is still limited in the
Australian context. International studies have reported that adolescents who bet online are
more likely to be problem gamblers, have lower grades, engage in delinquent activities,
abuse alcohol and illicit drugs, and are more likely to take medication for depression and
anxiety (MacKay, 2005). As young adults have been identified as being at greatest risk for
gambling‐related problems compared to any other age cohort (Delfabbro, 2008), this
highlights the particular vulnerability of youth to potential harmful consequences. Further
research in this population is necessary to understand the impact of interactive gambling
amongst this vulnerable population. Development of attitudes and entrenched behaviour
toward interactive gambling during adolescence has implications for longer‐term
involvement in adulthood and chronicity of problems affecting families and the broader
community (Gainsbury & Blaszczynski, 2011). However, it is also likely that a range of
psycho‐social and environmental factors play a role in young gambling, and related risky
37
behaviours and no studies have used a methodology which would enable causal inferences
to be drawn; therefore, caution is required in interpreting these findings.
•
•
•
•
Interactive gamblers are a heterogeneous population; however, some socio‐
demographic characteristics appear to be related to engagement with this activity.
Interactive gamblers are more likely to be male, aged between 25 and 55, employed
full‐time or students, married, have higher incomes, and have higher levels of
education.
Despite findings suggesting the above groups are more likely to engage in interactive
gambling, results also suggest that younger adults, people with low levels of
education, and low levels of income are also active online gamblers.
Youth represent a vulnerable population as they have an elevated risk of problem
gambling and estimates indicate that a substantial proportion of adolescents and
young adults are actively gambling online.
2.10 CONTRIBUTION OF INTERACTIVE MEDIUMS TO PROBLEM GAMBLING
‘Problem gambling is characterised by difficulties in limiting money and/or time spent on
gambling which leads to adverse consequences for the gambler, others or for the
community’ (South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, 2005, p. i.). A significant concern
regarding interactive gambling is the apparent association between this mode of gambling
and problem gambling. Researchers have speculated that the ongoing further legalisation of
gambling, the concomitant increase in gambling availability, and the promotion and
widespread market penetration of new gambling forms, will lead to increased rates of
problem gambling (Abbott, Volberg, & Ronnberg, 2004; Toneatto & Ladouceur, 2003; Welte
et al., 2009).
Several features unique to interactive gambling potentially make this mode of access more
problematic for players. Some of the characteristics of interactive gambling that are of
greatest concern due to their potential propensity to facilitate problem gambling are similar
to the factors that are cited as benefits to the majority of customers. The convenience and
accessibility of interactive gambling allows unlimited access to gambling opportunities from
almost any location, with no restrictions on the duration of play. This constant access
enables long, uninterrupted sessions of high‐speed, continuous play, as well as
instantaneous access to gambling with little effort required, enabling players to act on
impulses and urges quickly (Corney & Davis, 2010; Cotte & Latour, 2009; Wood & Williams,
2007; Wood & Williams, 2011). Interactive gambling provides easy access to a wide array of
gambling products, many of which may be unavailable in a local jurisdiction, including the
ability to play multiple games simultaneously (Griffiths & Wood, 2000; Monaghan, 2009).
Interactive gambling has a low cost of play and few required expenses such as transport,
parking, food and beverage costs associated with visiting a land‐based venue. The ability to
play for low stakes, as well as the competitive odds offered and in particular the frequent
38
offer of bonuses and free credits may present significant temptations for individuals and
encourage ongoing and new gambling sessions (McCormack & Griffiths, 2012a; Wood,
Williams et al., 2007).
The immersive nature of the Internet may result in dissociation and players losing track of
time and money spent, which is associated with gambling problems (Corney & Davis, 2010;
Griffiths, 2003; Griffiths & Parke, 2002; Monaghan, 2009). The online gambling environment
differs substantially from any land‐based gambling opportunities in the complete privacy
and anonymity possible (Cotte & Latour, 2009; Gainsbury, Russell, Wood et al., 2013;
Griffiths & Barnes, 2008; Lloyd et al., 2010; McCormack & Griffiths, 2012a; Wood, Williams
et al., 2007). Players can be completely isolated and hide their gambling from others and
interactive gambling operators cannot easily screen or observe players, including many
potential signs of risky play. Playing online also allows novice players to try out new games,
without any stigma or concerns about other players and access gambling in a comfortable
environment. The use of electronic credits and the ability to pay for gambling through credit
cards and online banking systems may have a lower ‘psychological value’ than cash and
encourage players to spend beyond their means (Corney & Davis, 2010; Griffiths, 2003).
Advertising and promotions for interactive gambling are commonly displayed in traditional
media (for legal forms) and online using pop‐up banners and advertisements. These
promotions and incentives may normalise gambling, encourage participation (offering ‘risk
free’ trials), and represent powerful triggers for vulnerable populations who have difficulties
resisting urges to gamble (Lamont, Hing, & Gainsbury, 2011; Monaghan & Derevensky,
2008; Monaghan, Derevensky, & Sklar, 2009).
Several forms of interactive gambling have features which have been associated with a
greater propensity to result in negative consequences, including continuous play with short
intervals between bet placement and determination of outcome, and variable ratio
schedules of reinforcement (Breen & Zimmerman, 2002; Turner, 2008). These types of
products may produce dissociative states (including losing track of time, going into a trance‐
like state, feeling like a different person, experiencing blackouts, and feeling ‘outside’
oneself during play (Diskin & Hodgins, 1999). The technological and product sophistication
of interactive gambling options means that many traditionally slower games may now be
played at higher speeds and bets placed more quickly, for example, live action and micro
betting on in‐play outcomes, the ability to bet on events around the world, instant lottery
draws, and playing multiple poker tables simultaneously. This trend may widen the types of
gambling associated with problems and create difficulties for people who gambled to a
lesser extent on offline forms.
•
Features of interactive gambling that may elevate the risk of developing gambling
problems include the convenience and ease of access, ability to play in private, high
speed continuous gambling, player incentives and advertising, and the immersive
nature of the Internet.
39
•
Research has yet to provide any empirical evidence that interactive gambling is more
likely to lead to the development of gambling problems and problematic interactive
gambling appears to be related to greater intensity of gambling on multiple forms.
2.10.1 PREVALENCE OF INTERACTIVE PROBLEM GAMBLING
Despite substantial increases in interactive gambling availability and expenditure, national
prevalence estimates of problem gambling have not significantly changed in recent years.
There is some evidence that the majority of individuals who gamble online appear to do so
at low to moderate levels (Gainsbury, Sadeque et al., 2012; LaBrie, Kaplan, LaPlante, Nelson,
& Shaffer, 2008; Nelson et al., 2008; Russell & Gainsbury, 2012; Wood & Williams, 2010).
However, numerous studies have reported higher rates of at‐risk, problem and pathological
gambling amongst interactive gamblers compared with non‐interactive (land‐based)
gamblers (Brunelle et al., 2012; Griffiths et al., 2009; Ladd & Petry, 2002; Olason et al., 2011;
Wood & Williams, 2011). In one survey of 12,521 international gamblers, interactive
gamblers (15% of total sample) were 2.24 times more likely to be problem gamblers, and 3.2
times more likely to be moderate‐risk gamblers, compared to non‐ interactive gamblers
(Wood & Williams, 2011).
A large survey of 6,682 Australian gamblers did not find that interactive gamblers were
more likely to be classified as problem gamblers than land‐based gamblers (Gainsbury,
Wood et al., 2012). However, interactive gamblers did have significantly higher problem
gambling severity scores and were more likely to be classified as low or moderate risk
gamblers. The 2011‐12 Queensland Gambling Household Survey found that usage of
interactive gambling was particularly high among moderate risk gamblers (Queensland
Government 2012). About 24% per cent of moderate risk gamblers had used the Internet to
gamble, and 18% of low risk gamblers, which was higher than the rate of participation for
recreational gamblers (9%). The results for problem gamblers were associated with high
levels of sampling error, but indicated that about one‐quarter of problem gamblers had
used the Internet to gamble in the last 12 months.
In the NSW gambling prevalence study, interactive gamblers who played casino games and
EGMs online were more likely than other types of gamblers to agree with the erroneous
statement ‘there are certain ways of playing pokie machines that give you a better chance
of winning’ (reported by 24% of interactive gamblers compared to 14% of land‐based EGM
players, casino gamblers, and sports bettors) (Sproston et al., 2012). In terms of reported
enjoyment of gambling, 48% of interactive casino and EGM players reported that gambling
made their lives more enjoyable, while 8% reported gambling made their lives less
enjoyable. In terms of gambling participation, only 14% of those participants classified as
problem or moderate risk gamblers had gambled on the Internet. However, this was much
greater than participation rates for non‐problem (1%) and low risk gamblers (8%). The
majority of problem and moderate risk gamblers gambled for over an hour per session
(87%) compared with 32% of non‐problem gamblers. However, problem and moderate risk
gamblers had similar levels of frequency for wagering on races and playing casino or EGMs
40
online, although problem and moderate risk gamblers bet on sports online more frequently
than other gamblers. Problem and moderate risk interactive gamblers were the most likely
to report sometimes feeling that they may have a gambling problem (23%), compared to 1%
of keno, lottery, EGM and race bettors, 2% of sports bettors and 3% of casino and bingo
players (Sproston et al., 2012).
A 2011 Tasmanian survey found that low risk gamblers gambled significantly more
frequently on the Internet than non‐problem gamblers, although significant differences
were not found between moderate risk, problem and non‐problem gamblers (Allen
Consulting Group, 2011). The 2010 ACT gambling prevalence study estimated that
approximately 10% of interactive gamblers are moderate risk or problem gamblers
(Davidson & Rodgers, 2010).
A survey of participants recruited from Australian betting sites found that the majority
rarely reported gambling more online than intended, although this proportion was higher
when a second survey was completed a year later, with up to 12% of participants scoring as
having severe gambling problems on a self‐report scale (SOGS) (McMillen, 2004). An
Australian report by Phillips and Blaszczynski (2010) stated that, although interactive lottery
purchases were infrequent, problem gamblers were six times more likely to purchase a
ticket online. Similarly, a survey in 2003 of over 2,000 Australian gamblers found some
evidence that people who gamble over the Internet were more likely to be problem
gamblers (Allen Consulting Group, 2003). The results found that 2.0% of land‐based
gamblers were considered at‐risk of experiencing gambling‐related difficulties, as compared
to 9.6% of interactive gamblers.
However, further analysis of results have repeatedly shown that the strength of the
relationship between interactive gambling and problem gambling is substantially diminished
when controlling for such factors as frequency and versatility of gambling (Halme, 2011;
LaPlante et al., 2009; Vaughan Williams et al., 2008; Welte et al., 2004; Welte et al., 2009). A
series of analyses of prevalence studies found that, when controlling for the number of
gambling activities, interactive gambling participation actually decreased the likelihood of
problem gambling (Philander & MacKay, 2013). The tendency for interactive gamblers to
use multiple forms and modes of gambling makes it difficult for research to isolate the role
of interactive gambling in developing problems. However, population studies suggest that
few interactive gamblers do not use land‐based modes of gambling (Wardle et al., 2011;
Wood & Williams, 2011). For example, analysis of the British prevalence survey found that
among past year gamblers, only 2.1% were online only gamblers, and these were mostly
lottery players who were less likely to gamble on multiple forms than other gambling sub‐
groups (Wardle et al., 2011). The small size of this population makes it difficult to conduct
methodologically rigorous research. Furthermore, different methodologies and statistical
analyses were used across studies making comparison of results difficult. Prospective,
longitudinal studies would provide further evidence on the role of interactive gambling in
the development of problems, but the low numbers of interactive gamblers in the
population makes such studies very challenging.
41
•
•
•
The majority of interactive gamblers appear to engage in this activity at moderate
levels.
Although research has yet to comprehensively examine interactive gambling and no
causal attributions can be made, there is some evidence that interactive gamblers
may be more likely to experience gambling‐related problems.
The relationship between interactive gambling and gambling problems is likely to be
attenuated by other factors including frequency and versatility of gambling.
2.10.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERACTIVE PROBLEM GAMBLERS
As with land‐based gamblers, interactive gamblers represent a heterogeneous population.
Analyses of Australian land‐based and interactive gamblers found some significant
differences between moderate risk and problem gamblers and interactive and non‐
interactive problem gamblers (Gainsbury, Russell et al., 2013). Problem interactive gamblers
were significantly younger (mean age 39 years) than moderate risk interactive gamblers
(mean age 44 years) as well as both problem (mean age 40 years) and moderate risk (mean
age 44 years) land‐based gamblers. Problem gamblers also engaged in a greater total
number of gambling activities than moderate risk gamblers, and the difference between
non‐interactive and interactive gamblers was significantly greater for problem gamblers.
The results indicated that past year online sports wagering was related to interactive
problem gambling, but not past year or weekly online race wagering, which was more
common amongst interactive moderate‐risk gamblers. Although a greater proportion of
interactive gamblers wagered on races, compared to betting on sporting events, sports
betting appears to have a greater association with gambling problems. Interactive problem
gamblers were most likely to nominate wagering as contributing most to their problems.
EGMs were highly associated with gambling problems for non‐ interactive gamblers and
almost one‐in‐five interactive gamblers indicated that EGMs contributed most to their
gambling problems and over one‐quarter of interactive gamblers attributed their problems
to land‐based play. This suggests that some EGM players use interactive gambling as a
supplementary form of gambling, which may exacerbate problems, as opposed to causing
new problems specifically related to interactive gambling.
Based on the same Australian study, amongst participants classified as interactive gamblers
(N=2,799), significant differences were found between interactive problem gamblers and
Internet non‐problem gamblers. The interactive problem gamblers were younger than
interactive non‐problem and at‐risk gamblers and were more likely to be single, have less
formal education, and be unemployed or a student (Gainsbury, Russell et al., 2013).
Unsurprisingly, problem gamblers reported higher monthly gambling losses as well as higher
household debt. The majority of those reporting gambling problems (62%) stated that these
problems occurred after first gambling online. The use of electronic funds was reported to
increase the amount spent by a greater proportion of problem gambler (53.5%), compared
to non‐problem and at‐risk gamblers (12%) and problem gamblers were more likely to
42
report disrupted sleep (48% vs. 9%) and eating patterns (34% vs. 4%). Problem gamblers
were also more likely to be influenced by incentives and bonuses, and preferred the
availability and convenience of Internet gambling, the privacy and anonymity, and better
game experience, although they were also more likely to say that interactive gambling was
too convenient, more addictive and it was easier to spend money on than land‐based
gambling.
The Australian online survey results were also analysed to consider interactive poker players
(Gainsbury, Hing, Blaszczynski, & Wood, 2011). This group was more likely to report feeling
like they had a problem with gambling ‘almost always’ (9.8%) as compared to non‐Internet
poker players (4.8%). Based on the Problem Gambling Severity Index, 22% of interactive
poker players were classified as non‐problem gamblers, 25% as low risk, 30% as moderate
risk and 24% as problem gamblers. In terms of contributions to problem gambling, poker
was reported to be the most significant form contributing to problems for less than 4% of
participants (no difference between Internet and non‐Internet gamblers).
These results are consistent with international research which has found several variables
which appear to predict whether someone is a problem gambler who engages in interactive
gambling, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Being male (McCormack, Shorter, & Griffiths, 2013; Wood & Williams, 2007);
Gambling on a greater number of gambling formats (McCormack et al., 2013; Wardle
et al., 2011; Wood & Williams, 2010);
Higher gambling expenditure (McBride & Derevensky, 2009; Wood & Williams,
2010);
Longer gambling sessions (Hopley & Nicki, 2010; McBride & Derevensky, 2009;
McCormack et al., 2013; Wood & Williams, 2007);
More frequent gambling sessions (Hopley & Nicki, 2010);
Gambling alone (McBride & Derevensky, 2009; McCormack et al., 2013);
Spending over allocated time and budget (Wood & Williams, 2010);
Having a greater number of gambling‐related irrational beliefs (Wood & Williams,
2010);
Having co‐morbid mental health problems (Wood & Williams, 2010);
Having a family history of problem gambling (Wood & Williams, 2010);
Being single (Wood & Williams, 2010);
Lower household income (Wood & Williams, 2010);
Use alcohol or drugs when gambling online (McBride & Derevensky, 2009;
McCormack et al., 2013);
43
•
•
•
Having a history of substance use and addiction (McCormack et al., 2013; Wood &
Williams, 2010);
Experiencing dissociation, boredom proneness and impulsivity (Hopley & Nicki,
2010); and
Negative mood states including depression, anxiety and stress (Hopley & Nicki,
2010).
It is important to note that not all of these factors are unique to problem gamblers who
gamble online, but may predict problem gambling on other forms as well.
•
•
•
Interactive problem gamblers are more likely to be younger the land‐based problem
gamblers and gamble on a greater number of different forms, including sports
wagering.
For some gamblers whose problems are associated with EGMs, interactive gambling
may be a secondary contributor to problems.
Amongst interactive gamblers, those who are younger, single, have less formal
education, are unemployed or students, have higher gambling losses and higher debt
levels are more likely to experience gambling‐related problems.
2.10.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERACTIVE GAMBLING AND PROBLEM GAMBLING
Despite the apparent relationship between interactive gambling and problem gambling,
studies have failed to establish a causal connection and evidence of the direction of
causality is inconclusive, that is, whether interactive gambling causes problems or whether
problem gamblers are attracted to interactive gambling (Griffiths et al., 2009; Wood &
Williams, 2010; Wood, Williams, & Parke, 2012). It is highly likely that the association
between interactive gambling and problem gambling is multifaceted (Wood & Williams,
2010).
Highly involved gamblers, including existing problem gamblers, are likely to engage in
interactive gambling due to the availability, convenience and privacy of this form. Studies
have repeatedly found that interactive gamblers are typically involved in multiple forms of
gambling (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Griffiths et al., 2009; South Australian Centre for
Economic Studies, 2008; Wood & Williams, 2010). The 2010 British Gambling Prevalence
Survey revealed that those who used the Internet for multiple types of gambling were more
likely to be categorised as problem gamblers compared to online gamblers who engaged in
fewer interactive gambling activities (Lloyd et al., 2012). Moreover, as mentioned above, the
strength of the relationship between interactive and problem gambling is substantially
diminished when controlling for such factors as frequency and versatility of gambling
(Halme, 2011; LaPlante et al., 2009; Vaughan Williams et al., 2008; Welte et al., 2004; Welte
et al., 2009). One recent study that analysed several large surveys found that when
44
endogenous correlation in online gambling participation is corrected, participation in
interactive gambling is actually associated with a reduction in problem gambling severity
(Philander & MacKay, 2013).
An online survey of Australian gamblers found that the number of gambling activities was a
significant predictor of interactive problem gambling (Gainsbury, Russell, Wood, Hing, &
Blaszczynski, 2013). Furthermore, one‐quarter of problem gamblers who engaged in
interactive gambling reported that their problems were primarily related to land‐based
gambling (Gainsbury, Russell, Hing et al., 2013). Interactive problem gamblers also engaged
in a significantly greater proportion of their betting at land‐based agencies than non‐
problem interactive gamblers (Gainsbury, Russell, Wood et al., 2013), suggesting that
although they used the Internet, a proportion of these players preferred land‐based
gambling. Therefore, for some individuals, interactive gambling may be a contributing factor
to gambling problems, potentially exacerbating these, as opposed being to the main cause
of problems.
Conversely, interactive gambling may be appealing to those who would not typically visit
gambling venues. Some of the most common cited reasons for interactive gambling include
the comfort and convenience of being able to play from home (American Gaming
Association, 2006; Griffiths & Barnes, 2008; Wood, Williams et al., 2007). Several studies
have cited one of the major reasons relating to people’s preference for interactive gambling
as a dislike of land‐based gambling venues and their clientele (Cotte & Latour, 2009; Wood,
Williams et al., 2007). The Internet provides anonymity, privacy and accessibility, which may
be particularly appealing to those who have safety concerns or would feel intimidated if
they do not know the rules (McCormack & Griffiths, 2012a). Several studies have found that
some women find interactive gambling to be safer, less intimidating and more anonymous
and fun than non‐interactive gambling (Corney & Davis, 2010; Griffiths, 2001; McCormack &
Griffiths, 2012a). Corney and Davis (2010) identified a number of problem gamblers who
developed specific interactive gambling problems while staying at home because they were
either unemployed, retired, or supervising their children. It is unlikely that these groups
would have developed gambling problems without the accessibility of interactive gambling.
Highly involved gamblers, including problem gamblers, are likely to use interactive modes of
gambling due to the convenience and accessibility of this form, in addition to the privacy it
provides. For these gamblers, interactive gambling may contribute to existing problems,
rather than being the original or central cause of difficulties.
•
•
Interactive gambling possesses several features that may result in problematic
gambling for some individuals who did not have existing problems.
As with land‐based gambling, there are multiple pathways to developing gambling
problems for individuals that engage in interactive gambling.
45
2.11 HELP‐SEEKING BEHAVIOURS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
There is little evidence to indicate whether interactive gamblers have different help‐seeking
behaviours from land‐based gamblers. A series of surveys of participants recruited from
Australian wagering sites found that the availability of problem gambling services was
increasingly important in selecting a site, although only for a minority of players (very
important for 1‐28% of participants; McMillen, 2004). Of available harm‐minimisation
services, betting limits were the most commonly used strategy (1‐6%) and other resources
including self exclusion, self tests, and sessions with a counsellor were used by less than 2%
of participants. An audit of 30 online casino and poker sites available to Australians found
that less than half of these presented a link to a responsible gambling page or to treatment
services and only seven sites provided a link to a self‐assessment tool (Kapcelovich, 2010).
Results from an Australian online survey found that problem gamblers were more likely
than moderate‐risk gamblers to report seeking help for gambling problems, with no
differences found between interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (Gainsbury, Russell,
Hing et al., 2013). However, a higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers were
interested in further resources about problem gambling than interactive gamblers. This may
suggest that non‐interactive problems gamblers have a greater awareness of their
problems, or that their problems are more severe than those of interactive gamblers.
Results from an international sample of gamblers found that only a small proportion of
interactive problem gamblers (9%) reported ever seeking help for a gambling problem,
although this was greater than the proportion of non‐ interactive gamblers seeking help
(5%) (Wood & Williams, 2011). Interactive gamblers appeared to use a wider range of help‐
seeking options, including counselling services, psychologists/psychiatrists, doctors and
telephone helplines, than non‐Internet gamblers, who primarily sought help from Gamblers
Anonymous or friends. Interactive gamblers also reported to be somewhat less inclined to
pursue Internet counselling (30%) than non‐Internet gamblers (35%).
Data from gambling telephone and Internet‐based support organisations show that
interactive gambling is reported as the main cause of problems by 44% of callers in Sweden
(Svensson & Romild, 2011), and 30% of clients in Australia (Gambling Help Online, 2012).
The major UK gambling helpline reported a 14% rise in the number of female callers
gambling on the Internet (to an overall proportion of 47%), compared to a rise of just 4% (to
an overall proportion of 24%) amongst males (GamCare, 2010). Concurrently, the
percentage of females indicating they gambled in casinos fell from 22% to 12%, suggesting
that women may be experiencing an increasing proportion of problems related to
interactive gambling compared to land‐based gambling. Helpline contacts are not
representative of all problem or treatment‐seeking gamblers; however, increased reports of
interactive ‐gambling related problems suggest an imperative for a greater understanding of
the impact of this mode of gambling.
46
•
•
The proportion of gamblers seeking help who indicate that their problems are
related to interactive modes of gambling is increasing.
Further research is needed to investigate whether traditional forms of treatment are
suitable for resolving problems related to interactive gambling and whether this
population are more or less likely to seek help for gambling‐related problems.
2.12 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has presented the results of a comprehensive literature review and
environmental scan to determine the existing knowledge on who, what, when, why and
how people are gambling using interactive technology in Australia. The next chapter,
Chapter Three, explains the methodology for this study.
47
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In conducting this project, the research team undertook five stages of empirical research,
using a mix‐methods approach, comprising surveys, interviews and secondary data
collection. This approach was considered to be highly suitable as it enabled nationally
representative data to be obtained about numerous aspects of interactive gambling, along
with rich in‐depth data from interactive gamblers with and without gambling problems.
Additionally, the approach included obtaining secondary data compiled by government
departments and agencies from gambling treatment agencies across Australia.
This chapter explains the methodology for each of these stages, which comprised:
Stage 1: National Telephone Survey;
Stage 2: National Online Survey;
Stage 3: Interviews with interactive gamblers recruited from the general population;
Stage 4: Interviews with treatment‐seeking interactive gamblers; and
Stage 5: Data collection from gambling treatment agencies.
Ethics approval for the study was gained from the Human Research Ethics Committees of
Southern Cross University (ECN: 11‐053), the University of Sydney (Protocol no.: 14040) and
the Victorian Department of Justice (Reference number: CF/12/15772).
3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY
This section explains key aspects of the methodology used to conduct the National
Telephone Survey.
3.2.1 PROCEDURE
A random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey of 15,006 Australians was conducted using a
computer‐assisted telephone interview (CATI) and conducted in November and December
2011 by Reark Research. The telephone survey was based on methodology used by Wood
and Williams (2010), who gave permission for their survey to be used. The research team
modified the wording of some survey items to be relevant for Australian participants. The
modified questionnaire also allowed the collection of information pertaining to specific
research objectives for the present study.
48
The following procedures were used to enhance optimal random sampling and valid self‐
report:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Telephone numbers were randomly drawn from the White Pages telephone
directory to ensure responses are representative of each Australian jurisdiction,
statistical area, age group and gender.1
The household interviewee was randomly selected by requesting the interview be
conducted with the adult (18 years or over) having the next birthday.
Maximal effort was made to complete each interview with the randomly designated
person. This included multiple call backs and phone calls on evenings and weekends.
The survey was kept as short as possible to increase the likelihood that the person
would participate.
The survey was extensively pilot tested to ensure ease of comprehension, logical
flow of questions, and inclusiveness of response categories.
Interviewers’ work received periodic visual and audio monitoring for quality control
by a supervisor.
The anonymity of responses and the importance of honesty were explained and
emphasised at the beginning of the interview.
To qualify for participation (in addition to the above sampling parameters),
respondents needed to be 18 years or over and to speak English.
3.2.2 RESPONSE RATE
The National Representative Telephone Survey successfully interviewed 15,006 Australian
adults, out of 28,729 eligible respondents (Table 1).
Table 3.1: Response profile of the National Representative Telephone Survey
N
Interviews achieved
Quota full
Did not qualify
Total eligible for screening:
Refused
Language barrier
Total not eligible for screening:
Total invalid numbers
Total phone numbers used
15,006
4,897
8,826
28,729
79,909
6,040
85,949
46,980
161,657
1
% of numbers
used
9.28
3.03
5.46
17.77
49.43
3.74
53.17
29.06
100.00
The research team proposed a strategy to also include mobile phone numbers not listed in the White
Pages, but this option was not included in the final design approved by Gambling Research Australia.
49
The response rate was given by the two steps below:
1.
Estimated potential eligibility rate:
=
Number of interviews achieved + Number of ‘quota full’
Total number of eligible respondents
=
15,006 + 4,897
15,006 + 4,897 + 8,826
=
69.28%
2.
Response rate:
=
Number of interviews achieved + Number of ‘quota full’
(# of refusals x estimated eligibility rate) + # of interviews achieved + # of ‘quota full’
=
15,006 + 4,879
(79909 x 69.28%) + 15006 + 4897
=
26.44%
Thus, the response rate for this study was 26.4%, which is within the bounds of a national
household CATI survey in Australia and similar to Australian telephone surveys for other
public health issues including smoking (Dunlop, Perez, & Cotter, 2011).
3.2.3 DEFINITION OF INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Interactive gamblers were defined as respondents who indicated that they had gambled on
at least one of the surveyed activities using the Internet within the last 12 months, while
non‐interactive gamblers were defined as respondents who had gambled within the last 12
months, but not online. As such, interactive gamblers were not necessarily exclusively
interactive gamblers, whereas non‐interactive gamblers gambled exclusively offline during
the last 12 months, but may have gambled online prior to this. These definitions are
consistent with previous studies (Griffiths et al., 2009; Olason et al., 2011; Productivity
Commission, 1999; Wardle et al., 2011; Wood & Williams, 2011), enabling comparison of
results.
3.2.4 TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
At the beginning of the survey interview, each participant was told:
Good (…). My name is ………. from Reark Research and we are conducting an important
national study concerning some popular pastimes and leisure habits of Australians. In
this study, I can only speak to a person in this household who is 18 years of age or older
and whose birth date is closest to today's date ... who would that be?
50
Once talking to respondent:
(Repeat above if different from person who answered the telephone). We are
conducting this study on behalf of Southern Cross University and the University of
Sydney to assist government and other decision‐makers to better understand the needs
of Australians. I would like to assure you that participation is voluntary and you can stop
at any time. All responses are confidential and anonymous and it is extremely important
that you please answer all questions as honestly as possible.’
Surveys typically took up to 25 minutes, primarily depending on the extent of gambling
involvement of the participant. The telephone survey instrument (Appendix A) had 10 main
sections:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Respondent selection. The relevant items from this section included: gender, age
group, household size and state/territory of residence.
Respondent screening questions. Two questions about the respondents’ gambling
participation on different forms in the past 12 months and whether the gambling
activities were on interactive forms (e.g., using the Internet or interactive TV).
Gambling behaviour. Gambling participation, frequency and expenditure on all forms
of gambling, including interactive forms, using questions with optimal wording to
collect this information.
Patterns and preferences of interactive gambling. Six questions concerned with
patterns and preferences of interactive gamblers including: year when they first
started using the Internet for gambling, their preferred devices, their interactive
gambling preferences, impacts on spending by using credit card/electronic money
transfer, and frequencies of impacts on sleeping and eating patterns.
The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI, Ferris & Wynne, 2001). Nine questions
requested the frequency of problem gambling with response categories being:
‘Never’ = 0, ‘Sometimes’ = 1, ‘Most of the time’ = 2 and ‘Almost always’ = 3. The total
PGSI score was the sum of the numeric values of responses given. Cut‐off scores
adhered to those used in the original validation of the PGSI: 0 = non‐problem
gambler, 1‐2 = low risk gambler, 3‐7 = moderate risk gambler and 8‐27 = problem
gambler.
Gambling consequences and help‐seeking behaviour. Five questions asked about the
contribution of each gambling form and interactive medium to gambling problems as
well as perceptions of the connection between interactive gambling and gambling
problems. Another five questions requested the nature and extent of any help
seeking for gambling problems.
Alcohol, tobacco and substance use, and mental health. These seven questions
requested information on: frequency of cigarette smoking, frequency of smoking
51
•
•
•
while interactive/non‐interactive gambling, frequency of drinking alcohol, frequency
of drinking alcohol while interactive/non‐interactive gambling, and frequency of
illegal drug use. Six questions from Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6; Kessler et
al., 2002) requested the frequency of symptoms of psychological distress from ‘None
of the time’ = 0 to ‘All of the time’ = 4. The total score was the sum of the numeric
values of the answers.
Demographics and Internet access. The eight questions from this section collected
information on: marital status, current living arrangement, educational level,
employment, county of birth, language spoken at home, Australian Aboriginal and/or
Torres Strait Islander descent and postcode of residence. Two questions asked about
Internet access at home and at workplace.
Gambling attitudes. One item from the Gambling Attitudes Scale (Wood & Williams,
2010) gathered respondents’ views about the benefit or harm that gambling has for
society.
Future research participation. This section collected the respondents’ contact details
if they indicated that they were interested in participating in future research.
3.2.5 SELECTED SAMPLE PROCESS
The sampling process to guide the interviewers through the relevant pathways of the survey
is illustrated in Figure 1. Of the 15,006 Australian adults who agreed to participate in the
survey, 9,596 (63.95%) reported that they had engaged in gambling at least once in the last
12 months and were thus eligible to continue with the survey. Interactive gamblers were
oversampled by design, with all 849 self‐reported interactive gamblers selected for the
entire survey, compared to 1,161 of the 8,747 self‐reported non‐interactive gamblers who
were retained for the entire survey (see Figure 1). The purpose of this oversampling was to
facilitate direct comparisons between interactive and non‐interactive gamblers.
52
a
An error in one of the survey skips meant that some respondents were not administered the Mental Health
Section. This error was picked up after one week of surveying and call backs conducted to relevant
respondents. All except 30 respondents completed this section.
Figure 3.1: Unweighted number of respondents who answered each section of the National
Telephone Survey. Weighted numbers are weighted by age x gender and number of adults in the
household
53
3.2.6 STRATIFICATION AND DATA WEIGHTING
The sample was stratified by state and territory according to information from the 2006
Australian Census as these were the data that were available at the time the survey
commenced. Analyses were weighted according to the 2011 Australian Census because
these data became available before survey analysis. The stratification was checked against
both the 2006 and 2011 Censuses and was considered to be accurate enough so that no
weighting by state/territory was required (Table 2).
Table 3.2: Percentage of the mainland Australian population from each state or territory according
to the 2006 and 2011 Censuses and the National Telephone Survey sample
State/Territory
New South Wales
Victoria
Queensland
Western Australia
South Australia
Tasmania
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory
2006 Census
32.99
24.84
19.67
9.87
7.63
2.40
1.63
0.97
2011 Census
32.17
24.90
20.15
10.41
7.42
2.30
1.66
0.99
Sample
33.01
24.45
19.23
9.81
8.27
2.64
1.64
0.95
Note: Unweighted figures
Source: Question H8
Design weight
As only one adult per household was interviewed, those in single‐adult households had a
100% chance of being selected for interview, whereas those in two‐adult households had a
50% chance of selection and so on. Thus, inverse probability weights were calculated as
being 1 for those in single‐adult households, 2 for those in two‐adult households, 3 for those
in three‐adult households, etc. Sixty‐four respondents out of 15,006 (0.4%) stated that they
lived in households with six or more adults. In order to avoid large weights, these
respondents were treated as living in households with five adults.2
2
The initial aim with the household weighting was to use a multi‐stage approach, such as the approach
outlined here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/pdf/Chapter_2.pdf. Unfortunately the 2011 Census
did not contain information about number of adults per household, only number of residents per
household (including children), thus we were unable to determine whether households of any particular
size were over‐ or under‐represented. Attempts to obtain this information from the Australian Bureau of
Statistics were unsuccessful as the Bureau was undergoing an extensive restructure during our data
analysis stage. Thus, the method employed here was a compromise that assumes that the sampling of each
household size was proportionate to the population. While this weighting procedure has been used in
numerous studies, we acknowledge this as a limitation to the research.
54
Post‐stratification weighting
Older respondents and females were overrepresented in the sample compared to data from
the 2011 Census, so a weight for each age x gender combination was calculated according to
the following formula:
Age x gender weighti
= (size of population celli) / (population size [adults only])
(size of sample celli) / (sample size)
where cell is the combination of gender and age category and i denotes the individual
participant. For the purpose of this weighting, the 65‐69 year old and 70+ year old
categories were combined. See Appendix B for the calculations for this weight.
Use of weighting in analyses
Unless stated otherwise, the cross‐product of the design and post‐stratification weights was
used for all analyses. As SPSS is inaccurate for weighted analyses that change the total n, all
weights were normed so that the final n for each analysis was equal to the number of
respondents who answered the relevant questions, although in some cases the presented n
is slightly different due to rounding or missing responses.
When calculating population prevalence figures, the different probability of sampling for
interactive and non‐interactive gamblers was also taken into account in the calculations. All
849 interactive gamblers were surveyed, while only 1,161 of 8,747 non‐interactive gamblers
were surveyed.
3.2.7 DATA ANALYSIS
SPSS v20 was used for analyses (IBM Corp., 2011). Pearson chi‐square analyses and t‐tests
were used for most comparisons and are reported throughout along with effect sizes where
the effect is statistically significant. Where subsequent comparisons were required for chi‐
square, Bonferroni corrected z‐tests were used and are reported in the tables in Chapter
Four. Various regression models were also used and the models are described later. An
overall alpha of 0.05 was used for all analyses.
3.3 METHODOLOGY FOR THE NATIONAL ONLINE SURVEY
The key advantage of conducting the National Telephone Survey was that it provided a
reasonably representative sample that permits findings to be generalised to the entire
population of Australian gamblers and Australian interactive gamblers. However, a
disadvantage of the telephone survey was that, because the prevalence rate of interactive
gambling was low, as expected, even a total sample size of 15,000 was unlikely to capture a
large enough sample of interactive gamblers to enable detailed sub‐analyses to be
conducted.
55
Hence, the primary objective of the National Online Survey was to recruit a substantially
larger sample of interactive gamblers, so that their characteristics might be identified and
explored in greater detail. This section explains the methodology used for the online survey.
3.3.1 RECRUITMENT METHODS
Recruitment for the National Online Survey was conducted using the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Advertisements on Internet gambling sites. Recruitment advertisements with links to
the survey were placed on various Internet sites of companies that provide gambling
services. Only companies regulated in Australia were approached to participate in
survey recruitment. Banners hosting links to the survey were displayed from May to
December 2012.
Advertisements on gambling‐related sites. Recruitment advertisements with links to
the survey were placed on various Internet sites considered likely to be accessed by
gamblers. Organisations invited to host links to the survey included Australian
gambling regulators, gambling‐related forms and information sites, sports and racing
associations, and organisations providing problem gambling information and
support. Banners hosting links to the survey were displayed from May to December,
2012.
Google AdWords. Google is Australia’s most visited Internet site (Alexa, 2013).Google
AdWords allow personalised advertisements and keywords to be created that
appear on Google when individuals search using one of your keywords.
Advertisements were paid for on a per‐click basis. Advertisements were run between
June and December 2012 and targeted Australian locations only using keywords
related to gambling, wagering, sports, technology, and gaming. In total, the
advertisements had 7,370,386 impressions resulting in 7,534 clicks to the survey
home page.
Advertisements on Facebook. Advertisements were purchased to be displayed on
Facebook. Facebook is Australia’s second most visited Internet site and most popular
social media site (Alexa, 2013). Australia has over 12 million Facebook users, as of
June 31, 2013 representing over half of the Australian population (FRANk, 2013).
Facebook has slightly more female (54%) than male users, and the largest age group
on Facebook is 25‐34 year olds, followed by 18‐24 year olds (Pring, 2012).
Advertisements were placed on Facebook from June to December 2012 and were
estimated to reach 8.2 million Facebook users. Advertisements were only displayed
to Australian Facebook users aged 18 or older and targeted users using key words
related to gambling, wagering, gaming, and technology. In total, the advertisements
had 24,636,490 impressions, generating 7,131 clicks to the survey home page.
56
Appendix C lists all organisations that hosted recruitment advertisements, while Appendix D
provides examples of recruitment notices used.
The survey asked respondents where they had heard about the survey. Results are shown in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Where respondents to the National Online Survey heard about the survey (unweighted,
multiple responses possible, N = 4,594)
Where heard about the survey
Online wagering/lottery site
Facebook advertisement
Google advertisement
Government website
Gambling forum
Gambling help service website
Media coverage
Friend or relative
Centre for Gambling Education and Research website
Turning Point/Gamblers Help Online website
Sporting organisation website
University of Sydney website
Land‐based gambling operators website
Other (not specified)
N
2,475
810
288
240
158
139
129
62
56
48
48
44
42
178
%
53.9
17.6
6.3
5.2
3.4
3.0
2.8
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
3.9
Source: D19
3.3.2 PROCEDURE
Recruitment advertisements contained Southern Cross University, the University of Sydney
and Turning Point logos, along with professionally designed graphics and captions that have
been shown to be successful in recruiting interactive gamblers (e.g., ‘Test your gambling
knowledge; take the online gambling survey’, and ‘See how your gambling knowledge,
attitudes and behaviour compare to other people’) (Wood & Williams, 2010).
Clicking on the link directed participants to a homepage for the online questionnaire which
commenced with the following explanation:
Welcome to the AUSTRALIAN GAMBLING SURVEY HOMEPAGE. We are collecting data
that will help researchers, policy makers, and other key stakeholders gain a better
understanding of interactive gambling and the people who gamble using the Internet,
mobile phone and digital TV. This project is titled ‘Interactive Gambling’ and is funded by
Gambling Research Australia. This research involves all Australians over the age of 18
who have gambled for money in the past 12 months.
Participants were then presented with an informed consent preamble, which outlined the
purpose of the study (as above), and reminded potential participants about the voluntary
nature of participation. No personal identifying information was collected about participants
57
unless they gave specific permission to be contacted for future research, and all participants
were assured of complete anonymity in subsequent reports or publications. The homepage
also contained contact information for the primary researchers, in the event that
participants had further questions about the study as well as contact details of the ethics
committees that approved the study. In order to minimise repeat responses, a ‘cookie’ was
built into the survey, such that those who attempted to repeat the survey were politely
declined access and reminded that they had already completed the survey once before.
As found in studies conducted by Wood and Williams (2004; 2010), no direct compensation
was required to gather a large sample of interactive gamblers. However, respondents could
elect to be entered into a draw to win one of five iPods. To do so, they were asked to send a
separate email to the Centre for Gambling Education and Research with their name and
contact details.
3.3.3 DEFINITION OF INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
As in the National Telephone Survey, interactive gamblers were defined as respondents who
indicated that they had gambled on at least one of the surveyed activities using the Internet
within the last 12 months, while non‐interactive gamblers were defined as respondents who
had gambled within the last 12 months, but not online. As such, interactive gamblers were
not necessarily exclusively interactive gamblers, whereas non‐interactive gamblers gambled
exclusively offline during the last 12 months, but may have gambled online prior to this. This
definition was used to allow for weighting based on the National Telephone Survey.
To provide a greater understanding of the extent of gambling participants engaged in
online, two additional questions were included: ‘Do you prefer Internet gambling to land‐
based gambling?’ (Question I4), and whether respondents mostly or exclusively gambled
online in the last 12 months (Question I1). Of the 3,178 (unweighted) respondents who
were classified as Interactive gamblers in the study, 80.2% stated that they gambled online
for at least half of their gambling over the last 12 months, indicating that this definition may
not have been as problematic as it might have otherwise seemed. Of the 3,178 Interactive
gamblers, 19.1% stated that they gambled exclusively online.
3.3.4 ONLINE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The online questionnaire (Appendix E) was based on the online questionnaire used by Wood
and Williams (2010) in a large study of international interactive gamblers. The online
questionnaire was modified to make it suitable for the current study, for example to
measure forms of gambling in Australia and ask additional questions included in the scope
of the project tender. The exact number of questions that any participant completed in the
online survey depended on a) what types of gambling they engaged in b) their problem
gambling status; and c) whether or not they were an interactive gambler. The vast majority
of questions were fixed‐choice, although there were several open‐ended questions. The
questionnaire had nine sections:
58
•
•
•
•
Gambling Behaviour Scale. This section contained between 24 and 58 questions
depending on responses. It collected information about the types of gambling
engaged in during the previous 12 months, on 10 types of gambling – instant scratch
tickets; lottery, lotto or pools tickets; sports betting; betting on horse or dog races;
bingo; keno; poker; casino table games not including poker; games of skill not
including poker; and electronic gaming machines. For each type of gambling,
frequency, percentage conducted over the Internet, expenditure, session length, and
websites most often used were measured. Respondents were also asked whether
they had played any simulated gambling games on the Internet without using any
money during the previous 12 months, and if so, which activities and which sites
they mostly used.
Interactive Gambling Behaviour. This section contained 17 questions which were
asked of interactive gamblers only. Questions included whether the respondent’s
gambling in the previous 12 months had been solely or mostly online or offline or
about half online and offline; whether they primarily gambled online at home, work
or elsewhere; what year they started using the Internet for gambling; whether they
preferred interactive or land‐based gambling; time of day they mostly engaged in
interactive gambling; preferred medium for interactive gambling; usual payment
method; number of separate online gambling accounts; preference for domestic or
offshore sites; reasons they first took up interactive gambling; main influences on
their choice of Internet site for gambling; and advantages and disadvantages of
interactive gambling over land‐based gambling. This section also asked respondents
how often, if ever, interactive gambling had disrupted their sleeping and eating
patterns, whether using a credit card or electronic money transfer when gambling
online had impacted on their gambling; and an open‐ended question on how
interactive gambling might be improved.
Demographics. This section contained 19 questions. Information collected
comprised: gender; date of birth; postcode; residence in a metropolitan, regional,
rural or remote setting; number of adults and children in household; marital status;
household type; highest educational qualification; work status; main type of
occupation; household income band; total household debt; country of residence;
country of birth; if speaks a language other than English at home; whether of
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin; access to mobile and landline telephones
at home; and how the respondent heard about the survey. This section was
modelled on the ABS Census data.
Problem Gambling Severity Index of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index. This
section contained the nine questions that comprise the Problem Gambling Severity
Index (PGSI) from the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI, Ferris & Wynne,
2001). Responses were scored as ‘Never’ = 0, ‘Sometimes’ = 1, ‘Most of the time’ = 2,
and ‘Almost always’ = 3. Scores can range from 0 to 27 and indicate the risk level of
gambling problems for each participant. Cut‐off scores were 0 = non‐problem
gambler, 1‐2 = low risk gambler, 3‐7 = moderate risk gambler, and 8‐27 = problem
59
•
•
•
•
•
gambler. The PGSI is widely used in Australia and is recommended as a measure of
problem gambling severity (Problem Gambling Research & Treatment Centre, 2011).
Problem gambling and help seeking. Respondents scoring 3 or more on the PGSI
(moderate risk and problem gamblers) were directed to this section which contained
11 questions. It asked about the type of gambling and medium that had contributed
most to any problems experienced from gambling; any other types of gambling that
also contributed to gambling problems; whether gambling problems arose before or
after the respondent first gambled online; whether interactive gambling had
contributed to or exacerbated gambling problems; whether the respondent had ever
considered that they needed help in relation to their gambling problems; if they had
ever sought help from a range of sources; number of times they had contact with a
professional help service; preferred source of professional help in the future; and
whether they wanted to know about resources to help with problem gambling, with
links to several help services provided.
Gambling Knowledge and Beliefs Test. This section contained eight questions based
the Gambling Fallacies Scale (Wood & Williams, 2010), which is a test of resistance to
common gambling fallacies, with possible total scores ranging from 0 to 8 (high
scores reflecting greater resistance).
Gambling Attitudes. This section contained five questions about: the perceived
benefit or harm that gambling has for society; whether promotions for interactive
gambling impact on the respondent’s gambling; where promotions and marketing
for interactive gambling should be allowed; which forms of interactive gambling are
legally able to be provided in Australia; and the likely impact on the respondent’s
gambling if all types of interactive gambling were legal in Australia.
Consequences of Gambling. This section comprised 6 multi‐part questions on:
personal problems from gambling, interpersonal problems from gambling; work or
study problems from gambling; financial problems from gambling; and legal
problems from gambling. These questions were adapted from the Productivity
Commission’s Survey of Clients of Counselling Services (1999). The Kessler
Psychological Distress Scale (K6; Kessler et al., 2002) was also included, which asked
the frequency of symptoms of psychological distress over the most recent 4 weeks
with fixed response ranging from ‘None of the time’ (=0) to ‘All of the time’ (=4) over
6 questions. The total score was the sum of the numeric values of the answers with
scores 12‐19 indicating mild to moderate mental health disorders and scores over 20
indicating clinically high levels of psychological distress (Andrews & Slade, 2001;
Kessler et al., 2003).
Feedback on the survey and future research participation. Four questions were
asked to ascertain how useful the feedback provided on respondent’s gambling was
to them, what changes, if any, they expected in their gambling behaviour over the
next few months as a result of the feedback, how the survey website could be
60
improved, and whether the respondent would be interested in participating in future
gambling research (if so, an email address was requested).
The online survey instrument was an interactive questionnaire that provided instant
feedback to participants. The purpose of this approach was to ensure the questionnaire was
engaging and interesting to optimise recruitment and completion. More specifically, after
every section, participants were presented with detailed charts comparing their
answers/scores/profile to other people taking the survey (broken down by age and gender)
to illustrate how ‘normal’ or ‘typical’ their behaviour is. For example, after the Gambling
Behaviour section, participants were shown how they compared in terms of: number of
gambling formats engaged in; frequency of gambling; total monthly expenditure; and
projection of their yearly expenditure. The Gambling Knowledge and Beliefs Test also
provided feedback on the correct answer to each question along with a detailed
explanation. The PGSI section gave respondents feedback on their current problem
gambling status. Thus, the questionnaire can also be considered as providing some
consumer education on gambling. All participants were asked whether they were interested
in further information and resources about gambling problems, and those who responded
positively were provided several links to Australian help and support services.
As mentioned above, the online survey used for this research was based on the online
survey used by Wood and Williams (2010) but modified for Australian participants.
Modifications to the Australian version of the Wood and Williams survey included removing
some of the sections not relevant to the current research (e.g., prediction skills, gambling
definition) and making gambling behaviour questions relevant to Australians. For example,
for participants who stated that they had gambled on Internet sites, examples of Internet
sites were provided for them to indicate the sites used. These were gathered based on the
most popular Internet sites available in English to Australians as ranked by Online Casino
City (http://onlinecasinocity.com), an independently verified Internet gambling portal, as
well as the sites listed first on Google.com Australia.
3.3.5 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Completion rate
A total of 4,688 respondents completed the entire survey, while a further 2,132 started the
survey but did not complete it, giving a completion rate of 68.7%.
Completion time
Median survey completion time was 23.1 minutes (the mean was skewed upwards partially
due to five respondents taking over one day to complete the survey).
Data exclusions
The data were examined for problematic responses. Of the 4,688 complete sets of
responses, 77 indicated that they lived in countries other than Australia and were thus
excluded. Of the remaining 4,611 responses, six people responded with dates of birth that
61
placed them under the age of 18 at the time that they took the survey and were also
excluded. Finally, 14 people gave postcode information that was not consistent with
Australian postcodes, leaving a total of 4,594 respondents for the survey.
3.3.6 DATA WEIGHTING
Raw demographics
The majority of the sample was male (77.8%), with a mean age of 42.1 years (SD = 14.7).
Other raw demographic and gambling behaviour are shown in Table 3.4. These raw data
were used for the subsequent weighting procedure.
Weighting
Online surveys are relatively inexpensive to administer and require virtually no data entry
on the part of researchers. However, online surveys also favour the recruitment of certain
demographics, particularly younger people. In this case, using an online survey was also
likely to favour the recruitment of interactive gamblers.
Given that the telephone survey was weighted in such a way that the results were as
nationally representative as possible, it was then possible to weight the data from the online
survey (which only included gamblers) to be comparable to the gamblers in the telephone
survey and, by extension, to gamblers in the population.
Unlike the National Telephone Survey, there were no selection restrictions such as only
selecting one person per household and no quota system was used to stratify the sample.
The only restrictions were that respondents had to be gamblers (whether online or not) and
had to be 18 years of age or older; so no design weights were employed.
In order to weight the current online survey against the National Telephone Survey, all
demographic and selected gambling variables were compared between gamblers in the
surveys. All comparisons between the figures from the National Telephone Survey and the
National Online Survey were statistically significant due to the large sample size in the
online survey. Some of these differences were considered inconsequential due to small
effect sizes, so the following variables were used for weighting: age (in brackets), gender,
interactive gambling status, state of residence, PGSI status and current living arrangements.
Specifically, the online survey sample overrepresented various age brackets, males,
interactive gamblers3, Western Australian gamblers (and underrepresented Victoria and
Queensland in particular), moderate risk and problem gamblers (as per the PGSI) and group
households.
3
The weighting procedure was based on the design by Wood and Williams (2009). However, in Wood and
Williams, only the interactive gamblers from the online survey were weighted against the interactive
gamblers from the telephone survey and these weights were extended to the non‐Interactive gamblers.
This approach assumes that the same sampling biases were present for interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers, which may not be accurate. To correct for this, a weight was applied based on interactive and
non‐interactive gambling status. Thus, we propose this weighting method as an improvement over that
used by Wood and Williams.
62
Weights were calculated to correct for age x gender, PGSI category, state of residence,
Internet gambling status and current living arrangements. These weights were multiplied
together to form a total weight and the same six variables were weighted by this total
weight and again compared to the National Telephone Survey data. This iterative process
continued until the weights were deemed to have converged; this was achieved after eight
iterations. Finally, weights were normed so that the weighted N was equal to the total N
answering each question. These normed final weights were used for all analyses.
The weights for each of these factors were calculated according to the following formula:
Cell weight
= (size of cell in telephone survey)/(sample size of telephone survey)
(size of cell in online survey)/(sample size of online survey)
where ‘cell’ refers to either a combination of age bracket and gender, or one of the levels of
the other variables.
The effect of weighting on this sample
Table 3.4 shows both the unweighted (raw) and weighted demographics for the sample,
which illustrates the effects of the weighting on the sample. Furthermore, Tables 3.5 and 3.6
illustrate how the weighting procedures changed the demographics of both the Telephone
and Online surveys and how the demographic characteristics of the samples converged.
Benefits and limitations of the weighting approach
Because the online survey and telephone surveyed differed greatly in key demographics, the
resulting weighting was quite strong. This concern is somewhat offset by the large sample
size.
One other concern with weighting is that the error terms can be incorrect. Thus, all
weighted data here have been adjusted (normed) so that the weighted N for an analysis is
equal to the number of respondents who answered the question. While we recruited a large
number of interactive gamblers, the number of interactive gamblers is substantially reduced
in any analysis comparing interactive and non‐interactive gamblers to maintain both the
representative proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers and the overall N for
the sample. This also means that there are inconsistent Ns within the chapter. It is thus
important to focus on the percentages, rather than the Ns.
For more information about weighting, please refer to:
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~rgrover/chapter_9.pdf
63
Table 3.4: Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 4,594)
Factor
Gender
Levels
Male
Female
Age group
18 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 or more years old
Marital status
Married
Living with partner/de facto
Widowed
Divorced or separated
Never married
Highest level of education
Postgraduate Degree
University/college
Apprenticeship/trade, technical
certificate, diploma
Year 12 or equivalent
Less than year 12
Work status
Full‐time employment
Part‐time or casual
employment
Self employed
Unemployed & looking for work
Full‐time student
Full‐time home duties
Retired
Sick or disability pension
Other
Occupation
Manager
Professional
Technician or trade worker
Community or personal service worker
Clerical or administrative worker
Sales worker
Machinery operator/driver
Labourer
Other
Missing (not working)
Source: D1, D2, D9, D10, D11
64
Unweighted
N
%
3,577 77.7
1,022 22.3
112
2.4
502
10.9
490
10.7
559
12.2
466
10.1
488
10.6
459
10.0
486
10.6
397
8.6
291
6.3
344
7.5
2,007 43.7
746
16.2
62
1.3
425
9.3
1,354 29.5
584
12.7
1,161 25.3
1,152 25.1
Weighted
N
%
2,288 49.8
2,307 50.2
272
5.9
531
11.6
405
8.8
304
6.6
429
9.3
452
9.8
446
9.7
430
9.4
389
8.5
291
6.3
644
14.0
2,318 50.5
666
14.5
77
1.7
357
7.8
1,176 25.6
673
14.7
1,144 24.9
1,101 24.0
1,032
665
2,567
514
22.5
14.5
55.9
11.2
1,124
552
2,154
665
24.5
12.0
46.9
14.5
379
141
330
84
359
140
80
723
1,003
404
131
387
193
142
156
400
1,055
8.2
3.1
7.2
1.8
7.8
3.0
1.7
15.7
21.8
8.8
2.9
8.4
4.2
3.1
3.4
8.7
23.0
245
119
643
119
498
96
54
644
1,001
272
199
391
178
79
69
284
1,476
5.3
2.6
14.0
2.6
10.8
2.1
1.2
14.0
21.8
5.9
4.3
8.5
3.9
1.7
1.5
6.2
32.1
Table 3.4 (cont.): Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 4,594)
Factor
Income
Country of birth
English spoken at home
State of residence
Metro or rural
Living arrangement
ATSI origin
Levels
$0 to $9,999
$10,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $69,999
$70,000 to $79,999
$80,000 to $89,999
$90,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $109,999
$110,000 to $119,999
$120,000 to $129,999
$130,000 to $139,999
$140,000 to $149,999
$150,000 or more
Do not know
Australia
Other
Yes
No
Western Australia
New South Wales
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Tasmania
Northern Territory
Major metropolitan city
Major regional city
Rural town/location
Remote town/location
Single person
One parent family with children
Couple with children
Couple with no children
Group household
Other
No
Yes, Aboriginal
Yes, Torres Strait Islander
Prefer not to answer
Source: D12, D15, D16, D3, D4, D8, D17
65
Unweighted
N
%
113
2.5
181
3.9
194
4.2
239
5.2
265
5.8
284
6.2
300
6.5
290
6.3
323
7.0
272
5.9
313
6.8
169
3.7
184
4.0
138
3.0
129
2.8
847
18.4
353
7.7
3,639 79.2
955
20.8
4,087 89.0
507
11.0
1,445 31.5
1,313 28.6
822
17.9
592
12.9
192
4.2
87
1.9
85
1.9
58
1.3
2,922 63.6
833
19.1
732
15.9
107
2.3
713
15.5
260
5.7
1,789 38.9
1,039 22.6
604
13.1
189
4.1
4,466 97.2
73
1.6
5
0.1
50
1.1
Weighted
N
%
180
3.9
208
4.5
188
4.1
240
5.2
228
5.0
231
5.0
262
5.7
392
8.5
312
6.8
210
4.6
262
5.7
122
2.6
176
3.8
194
4.2
143
3.1
748
16.3
498
10.8
3,686 80.2
909
19.8
4,090 89.0
504
11.0
531
11.6
1,500 32.6
1,088 23.7
880
19.2
378
8.2
65
1.4
107
2.3
45
1.0
2,803 61.0
845
18.4
859
18.7
87
1.9
471
10.3
243
5.3
2,615 56.9
872
19.0
274
6.0
119
2.6
4,409 96.0
57
1.2
1
<0.1
127
2.8
Table 3.4 (cont.): Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 4,594)
Unweighted
Factor
Mobile or landline at home
Weighted
Levels
Mobile phone only
Landline only
Both mobile phone & landline
N
1,161
119
3,314
%
25.3
2.6
72.1
N
819
103
3,672
%
17.8
2.2
79.9
Yes
No
3,239
1,355
70.5
29.5
572
4,022
12.4
87.6
Professional gambler
Semi‐professional gambler
Amateur gambler
55
311
4,226
1.2
6.8
92.0
12
57
4,525
0.3
1.2
98.5
Interactive gambler
Consider myself professional gambler
Source: D18, a combination of GB*c variables, GB13
Table 3.5: Unweighted demographic data from gamblers from the Telephone and Online surveys
Factor
Levels
Telephone
survey (%)
52.5
47.5
Online
survey (%)
77.7
22.3
Gender
Male
Female
18 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 years or older
1.6
3.8
3.7
5.0
9.2
9.0
9.9
9.9
11.3
10.3
26.2
2.4
10.9
10.7
12.2
10.1
10.6
10.0
10.6
8.6
6.3
7.5
Married
Living with partner/de facto
Widowed
Divorced or separated
Never married
57.0
9.0
7.9
11.3
14.7
43.7
16.2
1.3
9.3
29.5
Postgraduate Degree
University/college
Apprenticeship/trade, technical
certificate, diploma
Year 12 or equivalent
Less than year 12
10.2
23.1
24.2
12.7
25.3
25.1
19.1
23.3
22.5
14.5
Age group
Marital status
Highest level of education
Note: The unweighted telephone survey numbers are based on the 2,010 gamblers who completed the
whole
survey.
66
Table 3.5 (cont.): Unweighted demographic data from gamblers from the Telephone and
Online surveys
Factor
Levels
Work status
Full‐time employment
Part‐time or casual employment
Self employed
Unemployed and looking for work
Full‐time student
Full‐time home duties
Retired
Sick or disability pension
Other
Country of birth
Australia
Other
English spoken at home
Yes
No
ATSI origin
No
Yes, Aboriginal
Yes, Torres Strait Islander
Prefer not to answer
State of residence
Western Australia
New South Wales
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Tasmania
Northern Territory
Living arrangement
Single person
One parent family with children
Couple with children
Couple with no children
Group household
Other
Interactive gambler
Yes
No
PGSI
Non‐problem gambler
Low risk gambler
Moderate risk gambler
Problem gambler
Consider myself professional gambler Professional gambler (Yes)
Semi‐professional gambler
Amateur gambler (No)
Telephone
survey (%)
35.2
18.2
8.1
2.4
2.2
4.1
26.1
2.3
1.2
79.5
20.5
91.9
8.1
98.4
1.6
0.0
0.3
10.2
31.4
25.8
19.4
8.6
1.4
2.3
1.0
20.4
6.5
42.8
24.3
4.6
1.4
42.2
57.8
76.6
14.7
7.1
1.5
0.7
N/A
99.3
Online
survey (%)
55.9
11.2
8.2
3.1
7.2
1.8
7.8
3.0
1.7
79.2
20.8
89.0
11.0
97.2
1.6
0.1
1.1
31.5
28.6
17.9
12.9
4.2
1.9
1.9
1.3
15.5
5.7
38.9
22.6
13.1
4.1
70.5
29.5
40.5
23.3
22.3
14.0
1.2
6.8
92.0
Note: The unweighted telephone survey numbers are based on the 2,010 gamblers who completed the
whole survey.
67
Table 3.6: Weighted demographic data from gamblers from the Telephone and Online surveys
Factor
Levels
Telephone
survey (%)
49.9
50.1
Online
survey (%)
49.8
50.2
Gender
Male
Female
18 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 years or older
5.9
11.6
8.9
6.6
9.4
9.9
9.7
9.4
8.5
6.3
13.9
5.9
11.6
8.8
6.6
9.3
9.8
9.7
9.4
8.5
6.3
14.0
Married
Living with partner/de facto
Widowed
Divorced or separated
Never married
57.1
9.3
3.4
5.7
24.4
50.5
14.5
1.7
7.8
25.6
Postgraduate Degree
University/college
Apprenticeship/trade, technical
certificate, diploma
Year 12 or equivalent
Less than year 12
11.1
23.3
25.5
14.7
24.9
24.0
21.1
19.4
24.5
12.0
Full‐time employment
Part‐time or casual employment
Self employed
Unemployed and looking for work
Full‐time student
Full‐time home duties
Retired
Sick or disability pension
Other
37.3
21.4
7.7
3.6
6.2
4.9
14.7
2.4
1.7
46.9
14.5
5.3
2.6
14.0
2.6
10.8
2.1
1.2
Australia
Other
80.4
19.6
80.2
19.8
Yes
No
88.1
11.9
89.0
11.0
No
Yes, Aboriginal
Yes, Torres Strait Islander
98.0
2.0
0.0
98.7
1.2
<0.1
Age group
Marital status
Highest level of education
Work status
Country of birth
English spoken at home
ATSI origin
68
Table 3.6 (cont.): Weighted demographic data from gamblers from the Telephone and Online
surveys
Factor
Levels
State of residence
Western Australia
New South Wales
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Tasmania
Northern Territory
Telephone
survey (%)
11.5
32.6
23.7
19.1
8.2
1.4
2.3
1.0
Online
survey (%)
11.6
32.6
23.7
19.2
8.2
1.4
2.3
1.0
Living arrangement
Single person
One parent family with children
Couple with children
Couple with no children
Group household
Other
10.2
5.3
56.9
18.8
6.0
2.6
10.3
5.3
56.9
19.0
6.0
2.6
Interactive gambler
Yes
No
12.5
87.5
12.4
87.6
Non‐problem gambler
Low risk gambler
Moderate risk gambler
Problem gambler
81.4
11.9
5.8
0.9
81.5
11.8
5.7
0.9
Professional gambler (Yes)
Semi‐professional gambler
Amateur gambler (No)
0.8
N/A
99.2
0.3
1.2
98.5
PGSI
Consider myself professional gambler
3.3.7 DATA ANALYSIS
SPSS was used for analyses (IBM Corp, 2011). Weighted descriptive statistics were reported
for the overall sample, including the percentage of respondents in each category for
categorical variables or means and standard deviations (or medians as appropriate) for
continuous variables. Where groups (e.g., genders, PGSI categories) were compared, t‐tests
adjusted for unequal variances were used for continuous variables and chi‐square tests of
independence were used for categorical variables. Bonferroni adjusted z‐tests were used as
post‐hoc tests for the chi‐square tests where necessary. Finally, a number of regressions
were run and the methodology employed for these regressions is explained within the
results chapter.
69
3.4 METHODOLOGY FOR THE INTERVIEWS WITH INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
FROM THE GENERAL POPULATION
This section explains key aspects of the methodology used to recruit, conduct and analyse
interviews with 50 interactive gamblers recruited from the general population. This report
refers to this sample as ‘general population’ interviewees/participants, even though the
sample is not necessarily representative of the general population.
3.4.1 RECRUITMENT AND SAMPLING
Both the National Telephone Survey and the National Online Survey asked respondents
whether they would be willing to be contacted about participating in further research. From
this pool of potential participants, we aimed to recruit 50 interactive gamblers for in‐depth
interviews who were not seeking treatment for a gambling‐related problem.
The recruitment procedure targeted respondents to the National Telephone Survey and
people who had responded to the National Online Survey by the end of August 2012. All
respondents to these surveys who agreed to be contacted to participate in further research
and who had gambled at least once online in the previous 12 months were contacted by
email or telephone to invite their participation in a telephone interview. Of the 488 emails
sent out, 150 people agreed to a telephone interview.
We sampled from amongst these respondents to try to gain five sub‐samples of
interviewees whose main interactive gambling activity was: 1) lottery‐type
games/bingo/keno; 2) race betting; 3) sports betting; 4) casino games/EGMs; and 5) poker.
The main interactive gambling activity was identified from participant responses to the
National Telephone Survey or the National Online Survey (depending which they had
completed).
In selecting these sub‐samples, we also attempted to gain a spread of different PGSI scores.
Within each of these sub‐samples we attempted to gain five respondents who scored as
‘PGSI Low’ (PGSI score of 0‐2) and five respondents who scored as ‘PGSI High’ (PGSI score of
3‐27). However, the poker and casino games/EGMs samples fell short of our required
numbers. Thus, we sampled from within a ‘multiple gambling’ group of interactive gamblers’
(those who gambled on several forms equally where it was therefore impossible to identify
a ‘main’ type of interactive gambling). The sample from this ‘multiple gambling’ group
comprised people who gambled on poker or casino games/EGMs and on at least one other
interactive gambling activity equally often during the previous 12 months. Thus, our aim of
achieving a sample of interviewees with a diversity of interactive gambling preferences and
PGSI scores was achieved.
Table 3.7 shows the final breakdown of the interview sample obtained.
70
Table 3.7: Main interactive gambling activity and PGSI status of the 50 interactive gamblers
recruited from the general population
Preferred form of interactive gambling
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Sports betting
Race betting
Poker
Casino games/EGMs
Multiple including poker, casino games and/or EGMs
Total
PGSI Low
(0‐2)
5
5
5
3
2
5
25
PGSI High
(3‐27)
5
5
4
1
0
10
25
Total
10
10
9
4
2
15
50
3.4.2 PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS
Of the 50 participants, the majority were male (46 participants). Participants ranged in age
from 18 years to 72 years, with most interviewees aged between 30 and 50 years. In
selecting these sub‐samples, we also attempted to gain a spread from different jurisdictions.
The highest number of participants was from NSW (12), followed by Western Australia (11),
Victorian (10) and Queensland (8). Fewer respondents were from Tasmania (4), South
Australia (2), the Australian Capital Territory (2). No participants resided in the Northern
Territory. One participant did not want this information recorded. Table 3.8 shows the main
characteristics of the 50 interactive gamblers recruited from the general population.
71
Table 3.8: Main characteristics of 50 interactive gamblers recruited from the general
population
a
ID#a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
42
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
State
WA
NSW
VIC
WA
WA
QLD
WA
SA
NSW
VIC
N/A
QLD
TAS
TAS
QLD
QLD
ACT
TAS
VIC
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
VIC
QLD
NSW
TAS
VIC
VIC
VIC
NSW
QLD
WA
ACT
WA
WA
VIC
VIC
SA
NSW
QLD
WA
WA
WA
VIC
NSW
WA
NSW
NSW
QLD
Sex
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Age
36
N/A
72
51
45
29
28
40
N/A
37
52
27
42
58
32
40
31
60
52
26
58
38
34
54
41
N/A
34
52
20
24
48
N/A
34
60
29
68
71
28
71
46
38
39
37
38
37
31
32
18
N/A
33
PGSI
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
High
High
Low
High
High
High
Low
High
High
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
High
High
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High
Low
High
High
High
Main Online Gambling Activity
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Sports betting
Sports betting
Sports betting
Sports betting
Sports betting
Sports betting
Race betting
Sports betting
Sports betting
Race betting
Race betting
Poker
Race betting
Race betting
Race betting
Sports betting
Race betting
Poker
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Sports betting
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Poker
Multiple
Race betting
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Casino games/EGMs
Race betting
Poker
Casino games/EGMs
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Lotteries/Bingo/Keno
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Multiple
Participant ID numbers range from 1‐53 as 3 participants agreed to an interview and were assigned an ID
number but then were non‐contactable despite several attempts.
72
3.4.3 PROCEDURE
The participants were emailed a Participant Information Sheet and an Informed Consent
Form to sign and return, and were then telephoned to schedule a time for a telephone
interview. Interviews were conducted by a trained interviewer between September 2012
and November 2012 with each interview lasting 20‐50 minutes. A $40 shopping voucher was
offered as reimbursement. All interviews were digitally recorded with the participant’s
permission and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service.
3.4.4 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
The interviews were semi‐structured, with the interview schedule containing six main
sections asking about: transition from land‐based gambling to interactive gambling; media
preferences for interactive gambling; motivations for interactive gambling; advertising and
promotions for interactive gambling; the contribution of interactive gambling to gambling
problems; responsible gambling in the online environment; and help‐seeking behaviour for
gambling problems. The interview schedule is contained in Appendix F.
3.4.5 DATA ANALYSIS
The interview transcripts were analysed using NVivo software. A semi‐structured interview
schedule was adopted to ensure there was a level of consistency in how data were collected
across interviews. The interview schedule was then used to guide the coding of interview
data. Once the content of the interview data had been allocated to the broad interview
themes described above, a second stage of coding was undertaken in which each theme
was divided into unique attributes to represent their various dimensions. Interview data
were then progressively coded and allocated to various subcategories that comprised the
main themes being explored in the interviews.
3.5 METHODOLOGY FOR THE INTERVIEWS WITH TREATMENT‐SEEKING
INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
This section explains key aspects of the methodology used to recruit, conduct and analyse
interviews with 31 interactive gamblers who had recently received or were currently
considering or receiving treatment for a gambling problem at the time of the interviews.
This report refers to this sample as ‘treatment‐seeking’ interviewees/participants.
3.5.1 RECRUITMENT AND SAMPLING
The target sample for this stage of the study was 30 people who had gambled online during
the preceding 12 months and who were receiving, seeking or considering seeking treatment
for a gambling problem. We also aimed to gain a mix of participants for whom interactive
73
gambling was the major source of their gambling problem and for whom land‐based
gambling was the major source of their gambling problem.
Three recruitment methods were utilised to gain this sample. First, gambling counsellors
working at Turning Point recruited participants from callers to the gambling helplines they
operate, after appropriate screening questions. Second, an advertisement was placed on
the website of Gambling Help Online. Third, we advertised through Google Adwords.
Respondents to the Gambling Help Online and Google advertisements were directed to an
online registration page with questions to ensure they met the inclusion criteria of having a
gambling problem, were currently seeking or receiving help or thinking about seeking help
for a gambling problem, and had gambled online in the previous 12 months. These efforts
yielded 23 participants recruited through online advertising, seven participants through the
gambling helplines and one participant through word‐of‐mouth.
3.5.2 PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS
Of the 31 participants, the majority were male (25 participants). Participants ranged in age
from 18 to 62 years, with over one‐half of the interviewees aged between 20 and 50 years.
The highest number of participants was from Victoria (13), followed by NSW (9),
Queensland (6), South Australia (2) and Western Australia (1).
Amongst the 31 participants, EGMs (10) and race betting (10) were the reported main types
of gambling causing them problems, followed by sports betting (3), poker (2) and casino
games excluding poker (2). Four participants nominated more than one main type of
gambling causing them problems. Twenty‐three participants reported that they usually
engaged in the type of gambling causing them most problems online, while eight reported
that they usually did this in a land‐based venue.
The most problematic type of interactive gambling for participants was race betting (10),
followed by EGMs (6), sports betting (3), poker (2), and casino games excluding poker (2).
Eight participants reported that multiple forms of interactive gambling were causing them
problems.
Table 3.9 shows the main characteristics of the 31 treatment seeking interviewees.
74
Table 3.9: Main characteristics of the 31 treatment seeking interviewees
ID#a
State
Sex
Age
Type of most
problematic gambling
Mode of most
problematic gambling
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
QLD
VIC
VIC
VIC
VIC
VIC
SA
VIC
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N/A
50
49
39
27
N/A
26
26
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
11
12
14
16
17
QLD
QLD
VIC
QLD
NSW
F
F
M
F
M
44
N/A
N/A
18
25
18
20
21
23
24
27
29
31
32
34
36
39
40
41
43
44
49
56
VIC
VIC
QLD
VIC
SA
NSW
NSW
VIC
VIC
VIC
WA
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
QLD
NSW
NSW
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
M
M
34
47
28
45
62
29
30
34
43
49
18
26
37
50
32
44
28
27
Race betting
Race betting
Race betting
Poker
Multiple
Multiple
Race betting
Casino games
excluding poker
EGMs
Multiple
Race betting
EGMs
Casino games
excluding poker
Race betting
EGMs
EGMs
Race betting
Sports betting
Race betting
Sports betting
EGMs
Sports betting
Race betting
Race betting
EGMs
EGMs
Multiple
EGMs
EGMs
EGMs
Poker
a
Land‐based
Online
Online
Online
Land‐based
Most problematic
interactive
gambling
Race betting
Race betting
Race betting
Poker
Multiple
Multiple
Race betting
Casino games
excluding poker
EGMs
Multiple
Race betting
EGMs
Multiple
Online
Online
Land‐based
Online
Online
Online
Land‐based
Land‐based
Online
Online
Online
Land‐based
Online
Online
Land‐based
Land‐based
Online
Online
Race betting
EGMs
Multiple
Race betting
Sports betting
Race betting
Sports betting
Multiple
Sports betting
Race betting
Race betting
Sports betting
EGMs
Multiple
Multiple
EGMs
EGMs
Poker
Participant ID numbers range from 1‐56 as 25 participants registered for an interview and were assigned
an ID number but then either did not meet the inclusion criteria or were non‐contactable despite several
attempts.
75
3.5.3 PROCEDURE
The interviewees were emailed a Participant Information Sheet and an Informed Consent
Form to sign and return, and they were then telephoned to schedule a time for a telephone
interview. Interviews were conducted by telephone by two clinical psychologists between
October 2012 and February 2013 and each interview lasted between 30‐60 minutes. All
interviews were digitally recorded with the participant’s permission and transcribed
verbatim by a professional transcription service.
3.5.4 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
The interview questions were the same as for the sample of interactive gamblers recruited
from the general population, with additional and more specific questions on the
participant’s help‐seeking behaviour. The interview schedule is contained in Appendix F.
3.5.5 DATA ANALYSIS
Procedures for data analysis were the same as for the sample of interactive gamblers
recruited from the general population.
3.6 METHODOLOGY FOR DATA COLLECTION FROM GAMBLING TREATMENT
AGENCIES
This stage of the study aimed to collect available data compiled by relevant government
departments/agencies from treatment services and helplines across Australia to estimate
the prevalence of interactive gamblers amongst help‐seeking gamblers. Approximately 10%
of problem gamblers seek formal treatment specifically for gambling problems (Delfabbro,
2012). Therefore, gathering information on the number of gamblers seeking help related to
interactive gambling provides a further estimate of the prevalence of interactive gamblers in
the general population. Further, these data offer additional insight into the contribution of
interactive gambling to problem gambling in Australia.
Access to these data was sought from:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing;
Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation;
Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation;
South Australian Office for Problem Gambling;
Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services;
Australian Capital Territory Gambling and Racing Commission;
Western Australian Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor;
Amity Community Services in the Northern Territory; and
76
•
Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre which operates the national service Gambling
Help Online and the gambling helplines in Victoria, Queensland, the Northern
Territory and Tasmania.
After preliminary enquiries to some of the above departments/agencies about the type and
detail of data collected, all were contacted in early August 2013 to request information for
their jurisdiction for the last financial or calendar year on:
•
•
•
how many people present for help for themselves for a gambling problem;
how many of these, or what proportion, have some form of interactive gambling as
their primary or most problematic form of gambling; and
any aggregate characteristics of interactive gamblers who present for treatment
such as gender breakdown, age breakdown, type of problematic gambling, and any
other relevant statistics.
Data were received from all jurisdictions except for South Australia and the Northern
Territory, with the latter having only recently commenced data collection on the
contribution of interactive gambling to gambling problems amongst clients of gambling help
services.
3.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY
The mixed‐methods approach utilised in this study has been explained in this chapter. Table
3.10 summarises the samples attained and type of data collected during each empirical
stage of the research.
The next chapter, Chapter Four, is the first of the results chapters and presents the findings
of the National Telephone Survey.
77
Table 3.10: Sample Size and Data Collected in Each Empirical Research Stage
Data Collection
Method
National Telephone
Survey
National Online
Survey
Sample
GRA Requirements Addressed
Screener: N = 15,006
Survey: N = 2,010
Respondent selection
Respondent screening questions
Gambling behaviour
Patterns and preferences of interactive
gambling
Problem Gambling Severity Index
Gambling consequences and help‐seeking
behaviour
Alcohol, tobacco and substance use, and
mental health
Demographics and Internet access
Gambling attitudes
Future research participation
Gambling Behaviour Scale
Interactive Gambling Behaviour
Demographics
Problem Gambling Severity Index
Problem gambling, help seeking
Gambling Knowledge and Beliefs Test
Gambling Attitudes
Consequences of Gambling
Feedback on the survey and future research
participation
Transition from land‐based gambling to
interactive gambling
Media preferences for interactive gambling
Motivations for interactive gambling
Responsible gambling in the online
environment
Contribution of interactive gambling to
gambling problems
Help‐seeking behaviour for gambling problems.
Transition from land‐based gambling to
interactive gambling
Media preferences for interactive gambling
Motivations for interactive gambling
Responsible gambling in the online
environment
Contribution of interactive gambling to
gambling problems
Help‐seeking behaviour for gambling problems.
The proportion of interactive gamblers
presenting for treatment of the whole
population of gamblers presenting for
treatment.
Any other relevant data on these interactive
gamblers as collected by treatment agencies
N = 4,594
Telephone interviews
with interactive
gamblers recruited
from the general
population
N = 50
Telephone interviews
with treatment
seeking interactive
gamblers
N = 31
Data collection from
treatment agencies &
helplines
Across 6 Australian
jurisdictions
78
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS FROM THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
As detailed in Chapter Three, a random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey of Australian
adults was conducted using a computer‐assisted telephone interview (CATI) in late 2011. Of
the 15,006 respondents who completed the screening questions, only those who had
gambled at least once in the last 12 months (63.95%) were eligible to complete the full
survey which aimed to gain approximately 2,000 respondents. Interactive gamblers were
purposely oversampled for the full survey, with all 849 self‐reported interactive gamblers
selected, compared to 1,161 self‐reported non‐interactive gamblers, to give a total sample
size of 2,010 for the full survey. The purpose of this oversampling was to facilitate direct
comparisons between interactive and non‐interactive gamblers. As explained in Chapter
Three, interactive gamblers were defined as those who had gambled on at least one of the
surveyed activities using the Internet within the last 12 months, while non‐interactive
gamblers were defined as respondents who had gambled within the last 12 months, but not
online.
This chapter details the results of this National Telephone Survey. The results are presented
under the following broad categories:
•
•
•
•
•
Prevalence of gambling, problem gambling and interactive and non‐interactive
gambling;
Demographic comparisons of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers;
Gambling behaviour of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers;
Non‐monetary social casino game play on the Internet amongst interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers;
•
Interactive gambling behaviour;
•
Gambling help‐seeking behaviour amongst interactive and non‐interactive gamblers;
•
•
•
•
Problem gambling in interactive and non‐interactive gamblers;
Perceived benefit and harm from gambling amongst interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers;
Substance use and mental health of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers;
Characteristics statistically differentiating interactive gamblers from non‐interactive
gamblers; and
Characteristics statistically predicting level of problem gambling severity amongst
interactive gamblers.
79
4.2 PREVALENCE OF GAMBLING, PROBLEM GAMBLING AND INTERACTIVE
GAMBLING IN AUSTRALIA
Because the National Telephone Survey was representative of the Australian adult
population, national prevalence figures for gambling participation, problem gambling and
interactive and non‐interactive gambling participation in Australia could be calculated.
These figures are presented in this section.
4.2.1 PREVALENCE OF GAMBLING IN AUSTRALIA
In the present study, a gambler was defined as anyone who engaged in any form of
gambling at least once in the past 12 months (i.e., lottery tickets, lotto, pools, instant
scratch tickets, bingo, keno, horse or dog race betting, casino table games, poker, gaming
machines, sports betting, and betting on games of skill against other people).
After data‐weighting, the past‐year adult prevalence of participation in gambling in Australia
in 2010/2011 was 64.26%.
When calculated by State and Territory, after weighting the lowest prevalence was in the
Australian Capital Territory with 60.08% and the highest was Queensland with 68.84% (see
Table 4.1 for more detail).
Table 4.1: Past year prevalence of gambling amongst the Australian adult population in 2010/2011
by State/Territory. Total weighted N = 15,007
State/Territory
Queensland
Western Australia
Northern Territory
Tasmania
Victoria
New South Wales
South Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Unweighted N
1,963
1,025
93
260
2,304
3,067
749
137
Unweighted %
of gamblers
68.02
69.63
65.49
65.66
62.80
61.91
60.35
55.69
Weighted N
1,999
991
105
242
2,296
3,172
696
143
Weighted % of
gamblers
68.84
68.11
67.31
65.05
62.44
62.34
62.31
60.08
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights.
Source: H8.
The figures for past year prevalence for participation in the different forms of gambling took
into account the selected sampling of non‐interactive gamblers. The figures were given by
the following formula:
Prevalence = (% of interactive gamblers who engage in each form x estimated % of
interactive gamblers in the population) + (% of non‐interactive gamblers who engage in each
form x estimated % of non‐interactive gamblers in the population)
80
The most prevalent form of gambling participation in Australia was buying lottery tickets,
followed by buying instant scratch tickets, horse or dog race betting, electronic gaming
machines and sports betting (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2: Past year prevalence of different forms of gambling amongst the Australian adult
population in 2010/2011
Form of gambling
Lottery, lotto or pools tickets
Instant scratch tickets
Horse or dog race betting
Electronic gaming machines
Sports betting
Keno
Casino table games
Poker
Bingo
Betting on games of skill
Weighted % of population
43.19
31.49
22.42
19.43
13.28
8.90
8.71
5.94
2.94
1.61
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. Multiple responses were possible. As
interactive and non‐interactive gamblers differed significantly in their prevalence, n’s and percentages that
were unweighted are not reported as they could be misleading.
Source: C1a, C2a, C3a, C4a, C5a, C6a, C7a, C8a, C9a and C10a.
4.2.2 PREVALENCE OF PROBLEM GAMBLING IN AUSTRALIA
Each question in the 9‐item Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI; Ferris & Wynne, 2001)
was answered on a 4‐point scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (almost always), and the total
score was the sum of these values over all nine questions. The internal consistency of the
PGSI for this study was good with a Cronbach’s α of 0.84.
In this survey, the PGSI was administered to those who had gambled using interactive media
at least once in the previous 12 months and to randomly selected gamblers who did not
gamble via interactive media in the previous 12 months (see Figure 3.1).
To reduce the rate of false positives and participant burden related to answering irrelevant
questions, the PGSI was administered to only a sub‐sample of the randomly selected past‐
year non‐interactive gamblers (Williams & Volberg, 2012). The PGSI was not administered to
those who reported playing either bingo or lottery only less than 52 times in the past 12
months as they were not expected to be experiencing problems from these types of
gambling. These non‐regular bingo or lottery only gamblers were classified as non‐problem
gamblers in prevalence calculations. All other randomly selected past‐year non‐interactive
gamblers as well as all past‐year interactive gamblers were administered the PGSI.
Four respondents did not answer all nine PGSI items. As they constituted such a small
proportion of the subsample, they were excluded before calculating the total PGSI score.
81
The percentages in Table 4.3 were calculated by taking the percentage of interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers that fell into each category, multiplying each figure by the
respective estimated prevalence of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers and adding the
figures together. For example:
Estimated % of non‐problem gamblers in the population = (estimated proportion of
interactive gamblers in the population x proportion of interactive gamblers who are non‐
problem gamblers) + (estimated proportion of non‐interactive gamblers in the population x
proportion of non‐interactive gamblers who are non‐problem gamblers).
The proportion of non‐gamblers was estimated based on the percentage shown in Table 4.1.
Thus, the estimated proportion of non‐problem gamblers in the adult population was
52.29% (or 81.40% of all gamblers), while the estimated percentage of problem gamblers in
the adult population was 0.61%, or 0.95% of all gamblers (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3: Past year prevalence of problem gambling in the Australian adult population in
2010/2011
PGSI Category
Weighted %
of population
35.74
52.29
7.65
3.70
0.61
Non‐gambler
Non problem gambler (PGSI = 0)
Low risk gambler (PGSI = 1 to 2)
Moderate risk gambler (PGSI = 3 to 7)
Problem gambler (PGSI = 8 to 27)
Weighted %
of gamblers
NA
81.40
11.89
5.76
0.95
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. Differential sampling of interactive
and non‐interactive gamblers also accounted for. Non‐regular bingo or lottery only gamblers were
classified as non‐problem gamblers.
Source: A combination of E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8 and E9.
Table 4.4 illustrates how the gamblers responded to each of the PGSI questions. 11.50% of
gamblers reported feelings of guilt about their gambling, while less than 7% of gamblers
endorsed any of the other PGSI items at all.
82
Table 4.4: Percentage of gamblers endorsing each PGSI item amongst the Australian adult
population in 2010/2011 (weighted N = 2,010)
PGSI Item
Never
94.09
Some‐
times
4.61
Most of
the time
0.06
Almost
always
1.26
Have you bet more than you could really afford
to lose?
Have you felt guilty about the way you gamble or
what happens when you gamble?
Have you needed to gamble with larger amounts
of money to get the same feeling of excitement?
When you gambled, did you go back another day
to try to win back the money you lost?
Have you borrowed money or sold anything to
get money to gamble?
Has your gambling caused any financial problems
for you or your household?
Has gambling caused you any health problems,
including stress or anxiety?
Have people criticised your betting or told you
that you had a gambling problem, regardless of
whether or not you thought it was true?
Have you felt that you might have a problem
with gambling?
88.50
9.29
0.75
1.46
96.31
2.70
0.55
0.44
93.05
6.07
0.39
0.49
98.86
1.13
0.01
0.00
98.75
0.81
0.40
0.04
97.52
2.09
0.00
0.39
95.39
4.05
0.08
0.46
97.13
2.18
0.58
0.11
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. Differential sampling of interactive
and non‐interactive gamblers also accounted for. The question stem was ‘How often in the last 12 months
…’. Non‐regular bingo or lottery only gamblers were classified as non‐problem gamblers.
Source: E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8 and E9.
4.2.3 PREVALENCE OF INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLING IN AUSTRALIA
‘Interactive gambling’ in the present study includes all forms of gambling that are conducted
via the Internet using a computer, mobile phone, or other device, or gambling via
interactive television (Gainsbury, 2011). Interactive gamblers were defined as those who
had gambled using interactive media at least once in the previous 12 months. Non‐
interactive gamblers were those who had gambled using land‐based venues or via the
telephone at least once in the previous 12 months, but who had not gambled online.
Based on these definitions, 1,210 respondents out of the weighted sample (n=15,006) were
classified as interactive gamblers. Thus, the past‐year adult prevalence rate of interactive
83
gambling in Australia in 2010/2011 was 8.06%. The estimated percentage of non‐interactive
gamblers in the population was 56.16% (weighted 8,428 from 15,006 respondents)4.
4.3 DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISONS OF INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE
GAMBLERS
The following analyses were based on the same weights as explained above, but normed so
that the total N for these analyses was 2,010, in line with how many respondents were
sampled for these questions. The weighted number of interactive gamblers in the survey for
these questions was 1,055 compared to 955 non‐interactive gamblers.
Table 4.5 shows demographic comparisons between interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers. Key differences were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers were male (62.43%)
compared to non‐interactive gamblers (47.96%). Interactive gamblers were
significantly younger (M = 37.28, SD = 14.10) than non‐interactive gamblers (M =
45.13, SD = 17.39), t(1834.1)=11.02, p < 0.001, d = 0.50. Interactive gamblers were
more likely to be living with a partner/de facto or never married, while non‐
interactive gamblers were more likely to be married or widowed.
In terms of education, a significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers had
an undergraduate degree or a Year 12 certificate, while non‐interactive gamblers
were significantly more likely to have learned a trade or to hold a technical
certificate or diploma.
Interactive gamblers were significantly more likely to be employed full‐time, or to be
a full‐time student, while non‐interactive gamblers were significantly more likely to
be employed part‐time or retired.
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers lived in a group household
or in a one parent family with children, while non‐interactive gamblers were more
likely to live in single person households, or as a couple with children.
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers resided in Victoria, whereas
a significantly higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers resided in Western
Australia, with no other significant state or territory differences observed.
In terms of Internet access, a significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers
had broadband Internet access both at home and work, while a higher proportion of
non‐interactive gamblers did not have Internet access at home and at work.
4 The slight discrepancy between the overall gambling prevalence percentage and the prevalence of
interactive and non‐interactive gamblers is due to rounding in the weighting procedure.
84
•
•
Finally, 2.85% of interactive gamblers considered themselves to be professional
gamblers, compared to 0.42% of non‐interactive gamblers. The difference is
statistically significant.
No significant differences were observed in terms of country of birth, Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Island origin status or whether English is spoken at home.
Table 4.5: Demographic comparisons of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (weighted N =
2,010)
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Demographic factor
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Gender
Male
Female
χ2 (1, N = 2,011) = 42.51, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.15
Age Group
18 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 years and over
χ2 (10, N = 2,009) = 146.58, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.27
Marital Status
Married
Living with partner/de facto
Widowed
Divorced or separated
Never married
χ2 (4, N = 2,007) = 71.88, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.19
Highest Level of Education
Postgraduate degree
University/college
Apprenticeship, technical certificate, diploma
Year 12 or equivalent
Year 10 or equivalent
Less than year 10
χ2 (5, N = 2,010) = 50.91, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.16
85
658
396
62.43*
37.57
459
498
47.96
52.04*
52
184
169
112
127
95
90
78
64
39
44
4.93
17.46*
16.03*
10.63*
12.05*
9.01
8.54
7.40
6.07
3.70
4.17
58
101
74
59
87
95
94
92
84
64
147
6.07
10.58
7.75
6.18
9.11
9.95
9.84
9.63
8.80*
6.70*
15.39*
479
157
10
58
351
45.40
14.88*
0.95
5.50
33.27*
562
80
36
55
219
59.03*
8.40
3.78*
5.78
23.01
98
295
239
298
116
8
9.30
27.99*
22.67
28.27*
11.01
0.76
108
215
247
190
173
23
11.30
22.49
25.84*
19.87
18.10*
2.40*
Table 4.5: Demographic comparisons of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (weighted N =
2,010) (cont’d)
Demographic factor
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Work Status
Full‐time employment
Part‐time or casual employment
Self employed
Unemployed and looking for work
Full‐time student
Full‐time home duties
Retired
Sick or disability pension
Other
χ2 (8, N = 2,011) = 99.77, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.22
Current Living Arrangement
Single person
One parent family with children
Couple with children
Couple with no children
Group household
Other
χ2 (5, N = 2,006) = 63.85, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.18
Country of Birth
Australia
Other – Total
χ2 (1, N = 2,010) = 1.12, p = 0.29
State or Territory
New South Wales
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia
Tasmania
Northern Territory
Australian Capital Territory
χ2 (7, N = 2,011) = 33.93, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.13
Aboriginal/Torres Strait Island Origin
No
Yes, Aboriginal only
2
χ (1, N = 2,007)= 0.22, p = 0.64
86
538
187
86
29
86
40
56
19
14
51.00*
17.72
8.15
2.75
8.15*
3.79
5.31
1.80
1.33
336
210
73
36
56
49
155
24
17
35.15
21.97*
7.64
3.76
5.86
5.12
16.21*
2.51
1.78
79
81
548
170
149
24
7.52
7.71*
52.14
16.18
14.17*
2.28
102
47
552
184
45
25
10.68*
4.92
57.80*
19.27
4.71
2.62
864
190
81.97
18.03
766
190
80.13
19.87
346
335
180
72
83
20
12
6
32.83
31.78*
17.08
6.83
7.87
1.90
1.14
0.57
312
215
186
81
116
23
9
15
32.60
22.47
19.44
8.46
12.12*
2.40
0.94
1.57
1,035
18
98.29
1.71
935
19
98.01
1.99
Table 4.5: Demographic comparisons of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (weighted N =
2,010) (cont’d)
Demographic factor
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Internet Access at Home
No Internet connection
Broadband (ADSL, cable, wireless, satellite)
Dial‐up (analogue modem, ISDN)
2
χ (2, N = 1,999) = 60.27, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.17
Internet Access at Work
No Internet connection
Broadband (ADSL, cable, wireless, satellite)
Dial‐up (analogue modem, ISDN)
2
χ (2, N = 1,701) = 22.94, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.12
English Spoken at Home
No
Yes
χ2 (1, N = 1,230) = 1.10, p = 0.30
Consider Myself to be a Professional Gambler
No
Yes
χ2 (1, N = 2,010) = 17.77, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.09
17
1,020
14
1.62
97.05*
1.33
86
840
22
9.07*
88.61
2.32
182
721
12
19.89
78.80*
1.31
235
541
10
29.90*
68.83
1.27
65
566
10.30
89.70
73
526
12.19
87.81
1,024
30
97.15
2.85*
952
4
99.58*
0.42
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were re‐normed so that
total N = 2,010. In some cases, the total N is slightly different due to rounding. Asterisks (*) indicate that
the proportion of respondents in that category from that group (either interactive or non‐interactive
gamblers) is significantly higher than the proportion of respondents from the other group.
Source: A6, A7, H1, H3, H4, H2, H5, H8, H7, H9, H10, H6 and C12.
4.4 GAMBLING BEHAVIOUR OF INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE
GAMBLERS
This section compares the gambling behaviour of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
in terms of gambling participation, frequency and expenditure.
4.4.1 GAMBLING PARTICIPATION AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers engaged in gambling on horse or
dog race betting, electronic gaming machines, sports betting, keno, casino table games,
poker, bingo and betting on games of skill, compared to non‐interactive gamblers (Table
4.6). However, no significant differences were observed in the proportion of interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers who bought lottery tickets or instant scratch tickets.
87
Furthermore, interactive gamblers reported engaging in a significantly higher number of
different gambling activities compared to non‐interactive gamblers. On average, interactive
gamblers engaged in 3.62 (SD = 1.97) different forms of gambling, compared to 2.31 (SD =
1.40) for non‐interactive gamblers, t(1882.48) = 17.16, p < 0.001, d = 0.76.
Table 4.6: Past year prevalence of different forms of gambling for interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers (N = 2,010)
Form of gambling
Interactive
Gamblers
N
%
Non‐Interactive
Gamblers
N
%
Instant scratch tickets
548
51.99
465
48.64
Lottery, lotto or pools tickets
712
67.55
643
67.19
Sports betting
569
53.98*
152
15.90
Horse or dog race betting
677
64.23*
293
30.65
Bingo
76
7.21*
40
4.18
Keno
195
18.50*
127
13.27
Poker
210
19.94*
74
7.73
Casino table games
301
28.58*
109
11.39
Betting on games of skill
43
4.08*
21
2.20
Electronic gaming machines
453
43.02*
272
28.42
Test statistic
χ2 (1, N = 2,010) = 2.25,
p = 0.133
2
χ (1, N = 2,011) = 0.03,
p = 0.862
2
χ (1, N = 2,010) = 316.10,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.40
2
χ (1, N = 2,010) = 226.43,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.34
χ2 (1, N = 2,011) = 8.48,
p = 0.004, Φ = 0.07
χ2 (1, N = 2,011) = 10.20,
p = 0.001, Φ = 0.07
χ2 (1, N = 2,010) = 61.61,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.18
χ2 (1, N = 2,010) = 91.30,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.21
2
χ (1, N = 2,010) = 5.77,
p = 0.016, Φ = 0.05
2
χ (1, N = 2,010) = 46.33,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.15
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights.
Source: C1a, C2a, C3a, C4a, C5a, C6a, C7a, C8a, C9a and C10a.
4.4.2 GAMBLING FREQUENCY AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
There was a large amount of variance in most of the gambling frequency values, so median
frequencies were examined instead of means (Table 4.7). Interactive gamblers reported
engaging in the following forms of gambling significantly more frequently than non‐
interactive gamblers: sports betting, horse or dog race betting, betting on games of skill,
electronic gaming machines, keno and casino table games.
88
Table 4.7: Annual frequency of gambling activities among interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
Form of gambling
Interactive
Gamblers
Median
4.0
Non‐Interactive
Gamblers
Median
4.0
Lottery, lotto or pools tickets
12.0
12.0
Sports betting
9.4*
2.0
Horse or dog race betting
5.0*
1.0
Bingo
2.0
1.0
Keno
5.0*
2.0
Poker
12.0
7.0
Casino table games
3.0*
1.0
Betting on games of skill
12.0*
4.0
Electronic gaming machines
8.3*
4.0
Instant scratch tickets
Test statistic
U(970) = 111619,
Z = 0.95, p = 0.341
U(1268) = 186690.5,
Z = 1.86, p = 0.062
U(721) = 26976.5,
Z = 7.06, p < 0.001
U(950) = 59191,
Z = 9.17, p < 0.001
U(110) = 1037.5,
Z = 1.86, p = 0.063
U(317) = 8326,
Z = 4.66, p < 0.001
U(286) = 6618.5,
Z = 1.91, p = 0.056
U(410) = 11205,
Z = 4.97, p < 0.001
U(66) = 310.5,
Z = 2.26, p = 0.024
U(685) = 41553.5,
Z = 4.60, p < 0.001
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. Those who do not take part in the
activity were excluded from these analyses. Asterisks (*) indicate a significantly higher frequency for that
group.
Source: C1a, C2a, C3a, C4a, C5a, C6a, C7a, C8a, C9a and C10a.
4.4.3 GAMBLING EXPENDITURE AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Gamblers were asked, ‘In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you win or lose
on [form of gambling] in a typical month? That is, overall, how much were you ahead or
behind in a typical month?’ Losses were reported as negative numbers and wins as positive
numbers. There was a large amount of variance in the reported figures; consequently non‐
parametric tests were used to compare the medians for the interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers.
Interactive gamblers reported losing significantly more money gambling on lottery, horse or
dog race betting, poker and other games of skill compared to non‐interactive gamblers
(Table 4.8).
Overall, interactive gamblers who engaged in each form reported losses in an average
month on every form, as shown in Table 4.8. Amongst non‐interactive gamblers, wins were
reported on average on poker and betting on games of skill. However, only five (weighted)
89
non‐interactive gamblers reported expenditure for other games of skill, so this result should
be regarded with caution.
Table 4.8: Net monthly gambling expenditure of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
Form of gambling
Interactive
Gamblers
Median
‐$5.00
Non‐Interactive
Gamblers
Median
‐$5.00
Lottery, lotto or pools tickets
‐$20.00
‐$14.00*
Sports betting
‐$5.00
‐$2.00
Horse or dog race betting
‐$10.00
‐$3.00*
Bingo
‐$10.00
‐$3.11
Keno
‐$3.00
‐$2.67
Poker
‐$2.00
$50.00*
Casino table games
‐$5.00
‐$2.00
Betting on games of skill
‐$5.00
$3,000.00
Electronic gaming machines
‐$10.00
‐$8.00
Instant scratch tickets
Test statistic
U(708) = 59534.5,
Z = 0.72, p = 0.473
U(1094) = 128649,
Z = 3.59, p < 0.001
U(557) = 23608,
Z = 1.28, p = 0.201
U(727) = 48260,
Z = 2.24, p = 0.025
U(76) = 599.5,
Z = 0.88, p = 0.380
U(248) = 6475.5,
Z = 1.72, p = 0.086
U(232) = 3332.5,
Z = 3.03, p = 0.002
U(327) = 9884,
Z = 0.22, p = 0.828
W(513) = 351,
Z = 3.51, p < 0.001
U(513) = 27568,
Z = 1.11, p = 0.266
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. Those who do not take part in the
activity were excluded from these analyses. Positive numbers indicate winning, while negative numbers
indicate losing. Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher numbers, that is, lower losses.
Source: C1b, C2b, C3b, C4b, C5b, C6b, C7b, C8b, C9b and C10b.
4.5 NON‐MONETARY SOCIAL CASINO GAME PLAY ON THE INTERNET
AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
All gamblers were asked about their use of non‐monetary social casino game play
(simulated free play gambling‐type games) on the Internet. A significantly higher proportion
of interactive gamblers had played social casino games online without money (32.16%)
compared to non‐interactive gamblers (10.88%), χ2 (1, N = 2,010) = 132.18, p < 0.001, Φ =
0.26 (Table 4.9).
Of those who had played social casino games without money, the most common forms were
poker (61.1% of interactive and 58.7% of non‐interactive gamblers), followed by games of
skill (15.3% of interactive and 18.3% of non‐interactive gamblers) and electronic gaming
machines (9.4% of interactive gamblers and 18.3% of non‐interactive gamblers).
90
Table 4.9: Proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers who played social casino games
online without any money (weighted N = 2,010)
Played social casino games online without money
No
Yes
χ2 (1, N = 2,011) = 132.18, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.26
Interactive
gamblers N (%)
715 (67.84)
339 (32.16)*
Non‐interactive
gamblers N (%)
852 (89.12)*
104 (10.88)
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights.
4.6 INTERACTIVE GAMBLING BEHAVIOUR
This section details reported year of commencement of interactive gambling, preferred
device for accessing interactive gambling, preferences between interactive and land‐based
gambling, usual payment methods for interactive gambling, and sleep and eating
disruptions due to interactive gambling.
All 849 interactive gamblers were asked about their use of the Internet for gambling
purposes. The following analyses were weighted for household number and age x gender
and were normed so that the total N was 849, as this was the actual unweighted number of
interactive gamblers in the sample. As shown in Table 4.10:
•
•
•
•
•
54.91% of interactive gamblers first accessed the Internet for gambling purposes in
or later than 2009.
87.08% of interactive gamblers preferred to access Internet gambling via computer
or laptop, with a further 9.42% preferring to use their mobile or smart phone and
2.54% preferring to use a portable device, such as a tablet.
52.42% of interactive gamblers preferred interactive gambling to telephone or land‐
based gambling.
71.22% of interactive gamblers believed that using a credit card or electronic money
transfer has no impact on their spending, while 17.22% stated that it had increased
their spending.
9.55% of interactive gamblers reported sleep disruption due to their interactive
gambling and 3.54% reported a disruption to their eating patterns due to their
interactive gambling.
91
Table 4.10: Commencement, medium, preferences and disruptions relating to interactive
gambling (N = 849)
Question
Response
Interactive
gamblers N
Interactive
gamblers %
In which year did you first access the Internet for gambling purposes?
< 1991
4
0.50
1991 ‐ 1994
2
0.25
1995 ‐ 1999
22
2.77
2000
23
2.90
2001
20
2.52
2002
13
1.64
2003
10
1.26
2004
12
1.51
2005
58
7.30
2006
57
7.18
2007
45
5.67
2008
92
11.59
2009
165
20.78
2010
123
15.49
2011
148
18.64
What is your preferred method for accessing the Internet for gambling?
Computer/laptop
721
87.08
Mobile/smart phone
78
9.42
Other portable device (e.g., iPad or similar)
21
2.54
Television
3
0.36
Other
5
0.60
Do you prefer Internet gambling to land‐based or telephone gambling?
No
361
42.52
Yes
445
52.42
Don’t know
43
5.06
Does credit card or electronic money transfer have an effect on your spending compared to
cash?
No impact on spending
604
71.22
Increased spending
148
17.22
Decreased spending
59
6.96
Don’t know
39
4.60
Has online gambling disrupted your sleeping patterns?
No
767
90.45
Yes
81
9.55
Has online gambling disrupted your eating patterns?
No
817
96.46
Yes
30
3.54
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were re‐normed so that
total N = 849. In some cases, the total N is slightly different due to rounding.
Source: D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6.
92
4.7 PROBLEM GAMBLING AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE
GAMBLERS
The overall prevalence of problem gambling was reported earlier in this chapter. This
section provides problem gambling prevalence figures for interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers. Information on the gambling form and gambling mode that moderate risk and
problem gamblers reported as most contributing to their gambling problems is also
detailed, as well as their self‐reported assessment of the contribution of the interactive
mode to their gambling problems.
4.7.1 PREVALENCE OF PROBLEM GAMBLING AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE
GAMBLERS
As explained earlier, non‐regular bingo players and non‐regular lottery ticket buyers were
not asked to complete the PGSI and were therefore not included in the following analyses.
Weights were normed so that the total N for the following analyses was 1,768.
The relative prevalence of problem gambling among interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers is reported in Table 4.11. The overall problem gambling prevalence rate among
Australian non‐interactive gamblers was 0.87%. In comparison, the rate among interactive
gamblers was 3 times higher at 2.71%. Less than 60% of interactive gamblers were classified
as non‐problem gamblers, whereas more than 80% of non‐interactive gamblers were
classified as non‐problem gamblers. Chi‐square test shows the differences were significant
χ2 (3, N = 1,767) = 103.62, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.24).
Furthermore, the average PGSI score of interactive gamblers (M = 1.31, SD = 2.55) was
significantly higher than that of non‐interactive gamblers (M = 0.51, SD = 1.87), t(1731.4) =
7.61, p < 0.001, d = 0.37.
Table 4.11: Past year prevalence of problem gambling among interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers in 2010/2011 excluding non‐regular bingo and lottery gamblers (N = 1,767)
PGSI Category
Interactive gamblers
Non problem gambler (PGSI = 0)
Low risk gambler (PGSI = 1 to 2)
Moderate risk gambler (PGSI = 3 to 7)
Problem gambler (PGSI = 8 or higher)
χ2 (3, N = 1,767) = 103.62, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.24)
N
%
564
238
130
26
58.87
24.84*
13.57*
2.71*
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
657
99
46
7
81.21*
12.24
5.69
0.87
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were normed so that
total N = 1,768. The total N is slightly different due to rounding.
Source: A combination of E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8 and E9.
93
Furthermore, Table 4.12 illustrates how interactive and non‐interactive gamblers responded
to each of the PGSI questions. In every question, a significantly higher proportion of non‐
interactive gamblers reported ‘never’ to each of the PGSI items. Notably, 27.04% of
interactive gamblers reported guilt, compared to 11.36% of non‐interactive gamblers, while
17.52% of interactive gamblers reported chasing losses, compared to 6.67% of non‐
interactive gamblers.
Table 4.12: Responses to PGSI questions by interactive and non‐interactive gamblers excluding
non‐regular bingo and lottery gamblers (weighted N = 1,768)
PGSI Items
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Have you bet more than you could really afford to lose?
Never
814
84.97
763
Sometimes
118
12.32*
35
Most of the time
5
0.52*
0
Almost always
21
2.19
11
2
χ (3, N = 1,767) = 42.54, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.16
Have you felt guilty about the way you gamble or what happens when you gamble?
Never
699
72.96
718
Sometimes
227
23.70*
72
Most of the time
25
2.61*
5
Almost always
7
0.73
15
χ2 (3, N = 1,768) = 85.06, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.22
Have you needed to gamble with larger amounts of money to get the same feeling of
excitement?
Never
863
90.08
783
Sometimes
81
8.46*
19
Most of the time
8
0.84
5
Almost always
6
0.63
4
χ2 (3, N = 1,769) = 31.42, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.13
When you gambled, did you go back another day to try to win back the money you lost?
Never
791
82.48
756
Sometimes
133
13.87*
49
Most of the time
17
1.77*
2
Almost always
18
1.88*
3
2
χ (3, N = 1,769) = 49.92, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.17
Have you borrowed money or sold anything to get money to gamble?
Never
931
97.18
801
Sometimes
26
2.71*
9
Most of the time
1
0.11
0
Almost always
0
0.00
0
χ2 (2, N = 1,768) = 6.67, p < 0.036, Φ = 0.06
94
94.31*
4.33
0.00
1.36
88.64*
8.89
0.62
1.85*
96.55*
2.34
0.62
0.49
93.33*
6.05
0.25
0.37
98.89*
1.11
0.00
0.00
Table 4.12: Responses to the Problem Gambling Severity Index questions by interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers excluding non‐regular bingo and lottery gamblers (weighted N = 1,768)
(cont’d)
PGSI Items
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Has your gambling caused any financial problems for you or your household?
Never
922
96.25
800
98.89*
Sometimes
30
3.13*
5
0.62
Most of the time
3
0.31
4
0.49
Almost always
3
0.31
0
0.00
2
χ (3, N = 1,767) = 17.20, p = 0.001, Φ = 0.10
Has gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?
Never
895
93.52
790
97.65*
Sometimes
60
6.27*
15
1.85
Most of the time
0
0.00
0
0.00
Almost always
2
0.21
4
0.50
2
χ (3, N = 1,766) = 21.96, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.11
Have people criticised your betting or told you that you had a gambling problem, regardless of
whether or not you thought it was true?
Never
817
85.28
778
96.05*
Sometimes
125
13.05*
28
3.46
Most of the time
7
0.73*
0
0.00
Almost always
9
0.94
4
0.49
2
χ (3, N = 1,768) = 59.40, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.18
How often have you felt that you might have a problem with gambling?
Never
856
89.36
792
97.78*
Sometimes
83
8.66*
13
1.60
Most of the time
10
1.04
5
0.62
Almost always
9
0.94*
0
0.00
2
χ (3, N = 1,768) = 52.17, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.17
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were normed so that
total N = 1,768. In some cases, the total N is different due to rounding or refused responses.
Source: E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8 and E9.
4.7.2 GAMBLING FORM CONTRIBUTING MOST TO GAMBLING PROBLEMS AMONGST
INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
All 153 moderate risk (PGSI score 3‐7) and problem (PGSI score 8‐27) gamblers were asked
to identify the particular type of gambling that had contributed most to their gambling
problems.
95
The figures in Table 4.13 are based on a relatively small number of respondents so the
percentages should be interpreted with caution. Due to the low number of respondents in
some cells, inferential statistics were not run on these data.
Despite this, it is clear that approximately half of moderate risk and problem gamblers
believed that electronic gaming machines have contributed the most to their gambling
problems.
Table 4.13: Gambling form that has contributed most to gambling problems among interactive and
non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers (1st response only, weighted N = 142)
Form of gambling
Interactive gamblers
Instant scratch tickets
Lottery, lotto or pools tickets
Sports betting
Horse or dog race betting
Bingo
Keno
Poker
Casino table games
Betting on games of skill
Electronic gaming machines
Other
N
%
0
2
15
13
1
0
13
16
0
47
1
0.00
1.85
13.89
12.03
0.93
0.00
12.04
14.81
0.00
43.52
0.93
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
0
3
1
2
0
5
2
4
0
17
0
0.00
8.82
2.94
5.88
0.00
14.71
5.88
11.77
0.00
50.00
0.00
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were normed so that
total N = 142.
Source: F1a.
4.7.3 GAMBLING MEDIUM CONTRIBUTING MOST TO GAMBLING PROBLEMS AMONGST
INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
All 153 moderate risk (PGSI score 3‐7) and problem (PGSI score 8‐27) gamblers were asked
to identify the particular type of gambling medium that had contributed most to their
gambling problems.
Of the interactive moderate risk or problem gamblers, 58.25% identified land‐based
gambling as the primary gambling medium responsible for their gambling problem,
compared to 84.85% of equivalent non‐interactive gamblers. Similarly, 26.22% of moderate
risk and problem gamblers identified interactive gambling via computer as contributing
most to their gambling problem, while a further 11.65% identified internet gambling via
mobile phone or smart phone as the medium most responsible for their issues (Table 4.14).
Interestingly, three non‐interactive gamblers indicated that betting on the Internet via
computer or laptop had contributed most to their gambling problem. As these respondents
had not indicated any interactive gambling in the last 12 months, it is possible that they had
96
gambled online but not within the last 12 months, had previously experienced problems
relating to gambling online or responded erroneously to either this or previous questions.
As the figures in Table 4.14 were derived from a relatively small number of respondents, the
percentages should be interpreted with caution. Due to the low number of respondents in
some cells, inferential statistics were not run on these data.
Table 4.14: Gambling medium that has contributed most to gambling problems among interactive
and non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers (1st response only, weighted N = 136)
Form of gambling
Interactive gamblers
Internet via computer/laptop
Internet via mobile/smart phone
Internet via other portable device
Interactive television
Land‐based or venue‐based gambling
Betting via telephone
N
%
27
12
0
0
60
4
26.22
11.65
0.00
0.00
58.25
3.88
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
3
0
0
0
28
2
9.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
84.85
6.06
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were normed so that
total N = 136. There were also three (two interactive and 1 non‐interactive gambler) gamblers who stated
that they did not know and 23 (12 interactive and eleven non‐interactive) gamblers who said no one
medium had contributed the most to their problems (unweighted figures).
Source: F2a.
4.7.4 CONTRIBUTION OF THE INTERACTIVE MEDIUM TO GAMBLING PROBLEMS
Interactive gamblers who were identified as moderate risk or problem gamblers were asked
whether they had first experienced gambling problems before or after first gambling online,
with approximately half responding either way. Those who stated that they had gambling‐
related problems before they first gambled online mostly disagreed that online gambling
had exacerbated their gambling issues. In contrast, most of those who first experienced
gambling‐related problems after engaging in interactive gambling stated that they felt that
interactive gambling had contributed to their gambling problems (Table 4.15).
The figures in Table 4.15 are based on a relatively small number of respondents so the
percentages should be interpreted with caution. Due to the low number of respondents in
some cells, inferential statistics were not run on these data.
97
Table 4.15: Influence of interactive gambling on problem gambling amongst moderate risk and
problem interactive gamblers
Question
Response
N
N (%)
Did any problems experienced from gambling emerge before or after first gambling online
Before
38
53.52
After
33
46.48
(If before) How much do you agree or disagree that online gambling has exacerbated any
gambling problems
Strongly agree
5
13.15
Agree
3
7.89
Neither agree nor disagree
10
26.32
Disagree
10
26.32
Strongly disagree
10
26.32
(If after) How much do you agree or disagree that online gambling has contributed to any
gambling problems
Strongly agree
10
30.30
Agree
19
57.58
Neither agree nor disagree
1
3.03
Disagree
2
6.06
Strongly disagree
1
3.03
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were normed so that
total N = 98, although there were missing data for each question.
Source: F3, F4 and F5.
4.8 GAMBLING HELP‐SEEKING BEHAVIOUR AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND
NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
All 153 moderate risk and problem gamblers were asked about their help‐seeking behaviour
in relation to gambling problems. The figures in Table 4.16 are based on a relatively small
number of respondents so the percentages should be interpreted with caution. Due to the
low number of respondents in some cells, inferential statistics were not run on these data
except for the first question.
Of the gamblers who were classified as moderate risk or problem gamblers, the majority
reported they had not thought about seeking help for their gambling problems. Only 15.38%
and 25.89% of non‐interactive and interactive gamblers respectively had considered seeking
help. However, approximately 60% of both interactive and non‐interactive moderate risk or
problem gamblers reported that they had sought help through at least one of the forms of
help listed in a following question in the survey. The apparent contradiction in these results
may be because respondents interpreted the first question to mean only professional types
of help, such as counselling, whereas the follow‐up question about types of help used
98
included non‐professional help such as self‐help, self‐exclusion from land‐based gambling
venues or outlets, and help from family and friends.
Of those who had sought help, more than half of both interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers had attempted self‐help strategies, with the next most common form of help‐
seeking being family and friends for interactive gamblers (18.42%). Self‐exclusion from land‐
based gambling venues was also relatively popular (30.00% of non‐interactive gamblers and
15.79% of interactive gamblers).
When asked where they would prefer to seek help in the future, a face‐to‐face service was
the preferred location for help for 69.23% of non‐interactive gamblers compared to 36.79%
of interactive gamblers; a significant difference. The next most popular option was a
telephone service. A minority (21.70% of interactive and 15.39% of non‐interactive
gamblers) said that they would not seek help from a professional service.
99
Table 4.16: Help‐seeking behaviour amongst moderate risk and problem interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers (weighted N = 153)
Question
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Have you ever thought that you needed help in relation to your gambling?
No
83
74.11
33
Yes
29
25.89
6
χ2 (1, N = 151) = 1.79, p = 0.180
Have you ever sought help in relation to your gambling?
No
41
35.96
15
Yes
73
64.04
24
χ2 (1, N = 153) = 0.08, p = 0.780
Where have you sought help in relation to your gambling? (Multiple response)
Face‐to‐face from a specialist gambling counsellor
0
0.00
4
Face‐to‐face from a non‐gambling specialist professional
3
2.63
4
From a gambling helpline
1
0.88
3
From online or email gambling counselling
0
0.00
0
From a residential treatment program
1
0.88
0
From a face‐to‐face support group
4
3.51
1
From an online support group or discussion board
0
0.00
3
From family or friends
21
18.42
0
By excluding yourself from a land‐based gambling venue
18
15.79
12
or outlet
By excluding yourself from a gambling website or online
6
5.31
2
gambling operator
Through self‐help strategies
65
57.52
22
Other sources
2
1.75
1
From where would you seek help in the future in relation to your gambling problems?
A face‐to‐face service
39
36.79
27
An online service
13
12.26
1
A telephone service
27
25.47
5
Somewhere else
4
3.78
0
Would not seek help from a professional service
23
21.70
6
χ2 (3, N = 145) = 13.48, p = 0.009, Φ = 0.31
84.62
15.38
38.46
61.54
10.26
10.00
7.69
0.00
0.00
2.56
7.69
0.00
30.00
5.13
55.00
2.56
69.23*
2.56
12.82
0.00
15.39
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were normed so that
total N = 153. In some cases, the total N is different due to rounding or refused responses.
Source: F6, F7, F8 and F10.
100
4.9 PERCEIVED BENEFIT AND HARM FROM GAMBLING AMONGST
INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Amongst all non‐interactive gamblers, 46.94% believed that the harm from gambling far
outweighs the benefits compared to 33.27% of all interactive gamblers, while 8.00% of all
interactive gamblers believed that the benefits somewhat outweigh the harm, compared to
3.11% of all non‐interactive gamblers. Both of these differences were statistically significant.
However, more than two‐thirds of each group believed that the harms from gambling
outweigh the benefits, χ2 (4, N = 1,924) = 51.18, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.16 (Table 4.17).
Table 4.17: Perceived benefit and harm of gambling to society for interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers (N = 1,924)
Perceived benefit and harm of gambling
Interactive gamblers
The harm far outweighs the benefits
The harm somewhat outweighs the benefits
The benefits are about equal to the harm
The benefits somewhat outweigh the harm
The benefits far outweigh the harm
χ2 (4, N = 1,924) = 51.18, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.16
N
%
341
357
207
82
38
33.27
34.83
20.20
8.00*
3.70
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
422
277
152
28
20
46.94*
30.81
16.91
3.11
2.23
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were normed so that
total N = 1,980. The total N is different due to rounding and refused responses.
Source: I1.
4.10 SUBSTANCE USE AND MENTAL HEALTH OF INTERACTIVE AND NON‐
INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
The survey included a number of questions related to health and substance use (Table 4.18),
which were asked of 1,980 respondents.
About 80% of both the interactive gambler and non‐interactive gambler groups consumed
alcohol at least monthly. More than half of both groups drank alcohol at least weekly,
although interactive gamblers drank alcohol more often than non‐interactive gamblers. A
significantly higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers were non‐smokers, while a
significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers smoked daily (22.3% of interactive
gamblers compared to 13.2% of non‐interactive gamblers). In terms of illegal drug use,
14.3% of interactive gamblers reported use in the last 12 months compared to 7.9% of non‐
interactive gamblers.
The Kessler 6 scale was used to test for psychological distress. Using the scoring shown in
the note for Table 4.18, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of
the proportion identified as having high psychological distress. However, those in the
interactive gambling group (M = 3.25, SD = 4.04) did have significantly higher scores on the
101
Kessler 6 compared to non‐interactive gamblers (M = 2.87, SD = 3.37), indicating that
interactive gamblers may have a higher level of psychological distress compared to non‐
interactive gamblers, t(1968.8) = 2.27, p = 0.023, d = 0.10.
Table 4.18: Substance use and mental health comparison between interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers (weighted N = 1,980)
Substance use and mental health
measure
Past year alcohol use
4 to 6 days per week or more
2 to 3 days per week
Once a week
2 to 3 days per month
Once a month
Less than once a month
Never in the last 12 months
Never in lifetime
2
χ (7, N = 1,979) = 29.53, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.12
Past year tobacco use
Daily
Several days per week
Several days per month
Once a month or less
Only a few days all year
Never
2
χ (5, N = 1,980) = 42.09, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.15
Past year drug use
4 to 6 days per week or more
2 to 3 days per week
Once a week
2 to 3 days per month
Once a month
Less than once a month
Never in the last 12 months
Never in lifetime
2
χ (7, N = 1,975) = 36.33, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.14
Mental health (Kessler 6)
High psychological distress (13+)
2
χ (1, N = 1,980) = 3.01, p = 0.083
Interactive gamblers
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
N
%
199
282
191
109
80
95
55
35
19.02
26.96*
18.26*
10.42
7.65
9.08
5.26
3.35
173
202
126
141
95
91
71
34
18.54
21.65
13.51
15.11*
10.18*
9.75
7.61*
3.65
234
23
22
42
44
682
22.35*
2.20
2.10
4.01*
4.20
65.14
123
12
25
20
60
693
13.18
1.29
2.68
2.14
6.43*
74.28*
19
4
5
15
19
86
261
633
1.82
0.39
0.48
1.44
1.82
8.25*
25.05
60.75
9
13
1
6
14
31
246
613
0.96
1.40*
0.11
0.64
1.50
3.32
26.37
65.70*
36
3.44
20
2.14
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were re‐normed so that
total N = 1,980. In some cases, the total N is different due to rounding or refused responses. Kessler 6
responses were coded as 0‐4 and were summed. Scores of 13 or higher were considered to indicate high
psychological distress.
Source: G2, G1, G3 and a combination of G8, G9, G10, G11, G12 and G13.
102
The same 1,980 gamblers were then asked about their alcohol and tobacco use while
gambling, both online and in land‐based venues. As shown in Table 4.19, 65.14% of
interactive gamblers reported never smoking. Similarly, Table 4.19 shows 90.06% of
interactive gamblers reported never smoking while gambling online and 85.20% reported
never smoking while engaging in non‐interactive gambling, potentially suggesting that the
ability to smoke while gambling online is not necessarily a major factor that drives
interactive gambling.
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers reported drinking and smoking at
least sometimes while engaging in non‐interactive gambling compared to non‐interactive
gamblers. Furthermore, a higher proportion of interactive gamblers reported drinking or
smoking whilst engaging in non‐interactive gambling compared to interactive gambling.
Table 4.19: Frequency of using alcohol and tobacco while engaging in interactive and non‐
interactive gambling in the last 12 months (weighted N = 1,980)
Substance use measure
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Frequency of alcohol use while interactive gambling
Never
815
Sometimes
170
Most of the time
35
Almost always
25
Frequency of alcohol use while non‐interactive gambling
Never
53
Sometimes
314
Most of the time
120
Almost always
77
χ2 (3, N = 1,975) = 155.84, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.28
Frequency of tobacco use while interactive gambling
Never
942
Sometimes
49
Most of the time
17
Almost always
38
Frequency of tobacco use while non‐interactive gambling
Never
892
Sometimes
75
Most of the time
32
Almost always
48
χ2 (3, N = 1,977) = 51.04 p < 0.001, Φ = 0.16
77.99
16.27
3.35
2.39
51.10
30.05*
11.48*
7.37
90.06
4.68
1.63
3.63
85.20
7.16*
3.06*
4.58*
Non‐interactive gamblers
N
%
N/A
N/A
709
151
18
52
76.24*
16.24
1.93
5.59
N/A
N/A
874
43
3
10
93.98*
4.62
0.32
1.08
Note: Weighted by product of design and post‐stratification weights. The weights were re‐normed so that
total N = 1,980. In some cases, the total N is different due to rounding or refused responses.
Source: G4, G5, G6 and G7.
103
4.11 CHARACTERISTICS STATISTICALLY DIFFERENTIATING
GAMBLERS FROM NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
INTERACTIVE
The previous bivariate analyses presented in this chapter do not control for other factors, so
multivariate analyses were conducted in order to determine which factors uniquely
differentiate interactive and non‐interactive gamblers.
Logistic regression was used to model the relationships of measured and calculated
variables with interactive or non‐interactive gambling as the response variable.
Demographic variables and other variables of known importance for the analysis of
interactive gambling were entered into the equation simultaneously.
Due to low numbers in certain categories, the following variables were recoded:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Education – all respondents with less than year 10 education were grouped together.
Employment status – was recoded into ‘full time’, ‘part time’, ‘self employed’,
‘retired’ and ‘other’, where other includes unemployed, full‐time students, full‐time
home duties, sick or disability pension and other.
Country of birth – was recoded into ‘Australia’ or ‘other’.
Language spoken at home – was recoded into ‘English only’ or ‘Other’.
Indigenous status – was recoded into ‘Non‐Indigenous’ and Indigenous’.
Tobacco use, alcohol use and illicit drug use – each was recoded into ‘Not in the last
12 months’ and ‘At least once in the last 12 months’.
Home and work internet access – each was recoded into ‘No’ and ‘Yes’.
Categorical variables were coded with the following reference groups:
•
•
Gender (male).
•
Living arrangements (single person).
•
Employment (full time).
•
Language at home (not English).
•
Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use (never for each).
•
Marital status (married).
•
Education (postgraduate).
•
Country of birth (not Australia).
•
Indigenous status (non‐Indigenous).
•
Home and work internet access (no).
State of residence (NSW).
104
In addition to the predictors above, the following predictors were used: PGSI score, age (in
years), psychological distress (Kessler 6, treated as continuous) and number of types of
gambling activities engaged in, gambling expenditure (in thousands of dollars per year) and
perceived harms (continuous scale, where higher scores represent more perceived benefits
to society).
The model was initially tested for tolerance through a linear regression. Tolerance for two of
the living arrangement dummy variables was considered to be low (0.117 and 0.153) but
these were retained as no other meaningful collapse of living arrangement was possible and
because significant differences were found between interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers based on living arrangements. However, the same model was run without living
arrangement and education and the same predictors were significant, with the exception of
one of the State dummy variables now being a significant predictor (Tasmania).
Overall, the model correctly categorised 72.48% of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
and was significant, χ2 (40, N = 745) = 237.53, p < 0.001. Furthermore, the model predicted
both categories with approximately the same success, correctly predicting 73.26% of
interactive gamblers and 71.70% of non‐interactive gamblers. The dependent variable was
coded as 0 ‘non‐interactive gambler’ and 1 ‘interactive gambler’, such that odds ratios (ORs)
higher than 1 indicate that those with higher levels of that independent variable are more
likely to be interactive gamblers.
As can be seen from Table 4.20, the variables that significantly predicted interactive
gambling were: being male (OR = 0.45, p < 0.001), being younger (OR = 0.973, p = 0.002),
having home Internet access (OR = 0.20, p = 0.001), participating in more forms of gambling
(OR = 0.70, p < 0.001) and losing more money per year on gambling (OR = 0.64, p < 0.035).
105
Table 4.20: Logistic regression of characteristics differentiating Australian interactive
gamblers from non‐interactive gamblers
Predictor
b
PGSI score
‐0.08
Gender (ref female)
‐0.80
Age (in years)
0.03
Marital status (ref married)
Living with partner/de facto
0.01
Widowed
0.38
Divorced or separated
0.48
Never married
0.49
Living arrangement (ref single person)
One parent family with children
‐0.62
Couple with children
0.61
Couple with no children
‐0.02
Group household
‐0.52
Other
‐0.14
Education achievement (ref postgraduate)
Undergraduate/college
‐0.31
Trade, tech certificate, diploma
0.30
Year 12 or equivalent
‐0.25
Year 10 or equivalent
0.32
Less than year 10
0.53
Work status (ref full time)
Part time
0.12
Self employed
‐0.16
Retired
0.60
Other
0.20
Country of birth (ref not Australia)
0.05
Language at home (ref not English)
‐0.27
Indigenous status (ref non‐ATSI)
0.46
Tobacco use (ref none)
‐0.02
Alcohol use (ref none)
‐0.24
Illicit drug use (ref none)
0.02
Home Internet access (ref no)
‐1.61
Work internet access (ref no)
0.20
Psychological distress (Kessler 6)
‐0.01
No. gambling forms last 12 mths
‐0.36
Gambling expenditure ($000’s)
‐0.45
State (reference NSW)
ACT
0.59
Victoria
‐0.43
Queensland
0.08
South Australia
0.42
Western Australia
0.40
Tasmania
1.29
Northern Territory
0.11
Perceived harms of gambling
‐0.07
Std
Error b
0.07
0.20
0.01
Wald
p
0.246
<0.001
0.002
Odds
ratio
0.93
0.45
1.03
95% CI
Lower
0.81
0.31
1.01
95% CI
Upper
1.06
0.66
1.05
1.35
16.42
9.31
0.32
0.67
0.55
0.48
0.00
0.31
0.78
1.02
0.977
0.577
0.378
0.314
1.01
1.46
1.62
1.63
0.54
0.39
0.56
0.63
1.88
5.46
4.71
4.18
0.48
0.52
0.54
0.55
0.91
1.67
1.37
0.00
0.89
0.02
0.196
0.242
0.975
0.345
0.881
0.54
1.84
0.98
0.60
0.87
0.21
0.66
0.34
0.20
0.15
1.37
5.07
2.84
1.74
5.22
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.35
0.81
0.97
0.87
0.56
0.83
0.43
0.325
0.352
0.454
0.362
0.510
0.73
1.34
0.78
1.37
1.71
0.39
0.72
0.41
0.69
0.35
1.36
2.51
1.50
2.72
8.34
0.24
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.23
0.31
0.71
0.23
0.31
0.40
0.48
0.27
0.03
0.06
0.22
0.23
0.27
2.25
0.24
0.05
0.77
0.42
0.01
0.61
0.00
11.39
0.58
0.03
32.53
4.42
0.632
0.604
0.134
0.625
0.830
0.381
0.515
0.938
0.436
0.952
0.001
0.448
0.866
<0.001
0.035
1.12
0.85
1.83
1.22
1.05
0.77
1.59
0.98
0.79
1.03
0.20
1.22
1.00
0.70
0.64
0.70
0.47
0.83
0.56
0.67
0.42
0.40
0.63
0.43
0.47
0.08
0.73
0.94
0.61
0.42
1.81
1.56
4.01
2.66
1.65
1.39
6.35
1.53
1.43
2.24
0.51
2.06
1.05
0.79
0.97
0.98
0.23
0.25
0.37
0.33
0.72
1.06
0.09
0.36
3.34
0.11
1.26
1.43
3.22
0.01
0.72
0.551
0.068
0.739
0.262
0.231
0.073
0.916
0.395
1.80
0.65
1.09
1.52
1.49
3.63
1.12
0.93
0.26
0.41
0.66
0.73
0.78
0.89
0.14
0.79
12.26
1.03
1.79
3.16
2.84
14.80
8.85
1.10
*Significant predictors are shown in bold.
106
4.12 CHARACTERISTICS STATISTICALLY PREDICTING LEVEL OF PROBLEM
GAMBLING SEVERITY AMONGST INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
A similar model to the one used above was run to determine which characteristics predict
higher levels of problem gambling severity amongst interactive gamblers. The dependent
variable in this case was problem gambling severity, treated as a continuous variable. Due to
the extreme non‐normal distribution of PGSI scores, a Poisson regression was run instead of
a linear regression. Some independent variables were excluded from this analysis due to
issues with the assumptions for the analysis.
As shown in Table 4.21, the variables that significantly predicted greater problem gambling
severity amongst interactive gamblers were: being male, speaking a language other than
English at home, using illicit drugs in the last 12 months, having a higher level of
psychological distress, playing more forms of gambling, and spending (losing) more per year
on gambling.
The model suggests that males had PGSI scores 177% higher than females, English speakers
had PGSI scores about 65% of those of non‐English speakers and illicit drug users had scores
about 117% higher than those of non‐illicit drug users. For every unit increase in Kessler 6,
PGSI scores were predicted to increase by approximately 8%. Every extra form of gambling
engaged in predicted an increase in PGSI scores of 19%, while those who make $1,000 in
winnings predicted PGSI scores that are 73% of those of people who break even.
The analysis reported in Table 4.21 was run without data weights applied. When weights
were applied, the same predictors were significant in the same direction, with the addition
of age (younger respondents were more likely to have higher scores on the PGSI) and the
views of the benefits and harms of gambling (those who believe the harms outweigh the
benefits are more likely to have higher scores in the PGSI).
107
Table 4.21: Poisson regression of characteristics predicting higher problem gambling in interactive
gamblers (N = 374)
Poisson
Gender (ref female)
Country of birth (ref not Australia)
Language at home (ref not English)
ATSI Status (ref non‐ATSI)
Tobacco use (ref none)
Alcohol use (ref none)
Illicit drug use (ref none)
Home internet access (ref no)
Work internet access (ref no)
Age (in years)
Psychological Distress (Kessler 6)
No. gambling forms last 12 mths
Gambling expenditure ($000's)
Views about benefits or harms of
gambling
b
1.02
0.20
‐0.43
0.51
0.01
‐0.36
0.78
0.50
‐0.18
‐0.01
0.08
0.18
‐0.31
‐0.08
Std.
Error b
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.28
0.13
0.20
0.16
0.39
0.13
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.06
95% CI
Lower
0.70
‐0.10
‐0.70
‐0.04
‐0.25
‐0.75
0.47
‐0.27
‐0.43
‐0.01
0.06
0.12
‐0.45
‐0.19
95% CI
Upper
1.34
0.49
‐0.15
1.05
0.26
0.04
1.08
1.28
0.07
0.00
0.11
0.23
‐0.17
0.03
Wald
p
39.62
1.64
9.39
3.33
0.01
3.17
24.94
1.63
1.93
1.09
49.10
37.45
19.02
2.03
<0.001
0.200
0.002
0.068
0.944
0.075
<0.001
0.201
0.165
0.297
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.154
*Significant predictors are shown in bold.
4.13 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has analysed the results of the National Telephone Survey of a representative
sample of 15,006 Australian adults, with 2,010 gamblers from this sample retained to
complete the full survey. All interactive gamblers (N = 849) were retained to complete the
full survey, as well as 1,161 randomly selected non‐interactive gamblers. Appropriate
weighting was used to make the sample as representative as possible of the Australian adult
population.
After data‐weighting, the past‐year adult prevalence of participation in gambling in Australia
in 2010/2011 was 64.26%. The estimated proportion of non‐problem gamblers in the adult
population was 52.29% (or 81.40% of all gamblers), while the estimated percentage of
problem gamblers in the adult population was 0.61%, or 0.95% of all gamblers. The past‐
year adult prevalence rate of interactive gambling in Australia in 2010/2011 was 8.06%. The
estimated percentage of non‐interactive gamblers in the population was 56.16%. The most
popular forms of gambling were lottery products (43%), instant scratch tickets (32%) and
race betting (22%).
Compared to non‐interactive gamblers, interactive gamblers were more likely to be male,
younger, have Internet access at home, participate in more forms of gambling and lose
more money gambling. These were all statistically significant predictors of interactive
gambling when controlling for other variables. Interactive gamblers also appeared to
gamble more frequently than non‐interactive gamblers, and were more likely to engage in
108
each type of gambling, with the exception of instant scratch tickets and lottery tickets. Most
interactive gamblers commenced this activity since 2009 and preferred to gamble online
using a computer from home. Just over half of interactive gamblers reported preferring this
mode of access and a notable minority reported disruptive consequences related to
interactive gambling, including spending more money, sleep and eating disruptions.
Interactive gamblers had higher problem gambling severity scores on average, than non‐
interactive gamblers, and were significantly more likely to be at low or moderate risk or
possible problem gamblers. Both interactive and non‐interactive gamblers were most likely
to attribute their problems to EGMs and land‐based modes of gambling. Just over half of
interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers reported experiencing gambling problems
before they ever gambled online; however, the relatively small number of participants in
this category means that caution is necessary in interpreting these results. The majority of
moderate risk and problem gamblers reported having sought help when self‐help options
were included, although only a minority reported having sought formal treatment.
Interactive gamblers were more likely to report some benefits of gambling. Interactive
gamblers reported greater alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use than non‐interactive
gamblers as well as higher rates of psychological distress. When controlling for other
variables, characteristics predicting higher problem gambling scores among interactive
gamblers included being male, speaking a language other than English at home, illicit drug
use, higher psychological distress, greater number of gambling activities, and greater
gambling expenditure.
The next chapter, Chapter Five, presents the results of the National Online Survey.
109
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS FROM THE NATIONAL ONLINE SURVEY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
As detailed in Chapter Three, a National Online Survey was conducted during 2012‐13 to
capture a large sample of interactive gamblers so that their characteristics might be
identified and explored in detail. Participants were recruited through advertising on
numerous websites and 4,594 usable responses were obtained. Interactive gamblers were
defined as those who had gambled on at least one of the surveyed activities using the
Internet within the last 12 months, while non‐interactive gamblers were defined as
respondents who had gambled within the last 12 months, but not online. Of the 4,594
eligible respondents, 3,239 (70.5%) were interactive gamblers and 1,355 (29.5%) were non‐
interactive gamblers. No non‐gamblers were surveyed. The majority of the sample was male
(77.8%), with a mean age of 42.1 years (SD = 14.7).
Data weighting was used to make the National Online Survey responses more
representative of the Australian adult population of gamblers. Given that the National
Telephone Survey was weighted in such a way that the results were as nationally
representative as possible, it was possible to weight the data from the online survey to be
comparable to the telephone survey and, by extension, the population of gamblers. Chapter
Three explains the weighting procedures.
All weighted data in this chapter have been adjusted (normed) so that the weighted N for an
analysis is equal to the number of respondents who answered the question. While a large
number of interactive gamblers were recruited, the number of interactive gamblers is
substantially reduced in any analysis comparing interactive and non‐interactive gamblers to
maintain both the representative proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
and the overall N for the sample. This also means that there are inconsistent Ns within the
chapter. It is therefore important to focus on the percentages, rather than the Ns.
This chapter details the results of this National Online Survey. The results are presented
under the following broad categories:
•
•
•
•
Prevalence of gambling and problem gambling amongst gamblers in the weighted
online survey;
Demographic comparisons of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers;
Gambling behaviour of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers;
Non‐monetary social casino game play on the Internet amongst interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers;
110
•
•
Interactive gambling behaviour;
•
Gambling help‐seeking behaviour amongst interactive and non‐interactive gamblers;
•
•
•
•
•
Problem gambling in interactive and non‐interactive gamblers;
Substance use, mental health and harms from gambling amongst interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers;
Attitudes to gambling and gambling fallacies amonsgt interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers;
Characteristics statistically differentiating interactive gamblers from non‐interactive
gamblers;
Characteristics statistically predicting level of problem gambling severity amongst
interactive gamblers; and
Characteristics statistically differentiating interactive moderate risk and problem
gamblers from non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers.
5.2 PREVALENCE OF GAMBLING AMONGST GAMBLERS IN THE WEIGHTED
NATIONAL ONLINE SURVEY SAMPLE
This section summarises prevalence rates for gambling participation amongst the weighted
national online survey sample.
Over the entire sample, the most prevalent form of gambling was buying lottery, lotto or
pools tickets (77.4%) followed by gambling on electronic gaming machines (55.6%) (Table
5.1). Note that these figures are amongst gamblers only, as no non‐gamblers were surveyed
in the online survey, and are thus different to those in the National Telephone Survey.
Table 5.1: Past year prevalence of different forms of gambling amongst Australian gamblers in
2012/3 (weighted N = 4,594)
Gambling form
Lottery, lotto or pools tickets
Electronic gaming machines
Instant scratch tickets
Horse or dog race betting
Sports betting
Keno
Casino table games
Poker
Bingo
Betting on games of skill
Weighted % of sample
77.4
55.6
49.1
38.0
31.1
24.7
18.9
9.7
7.3
3.9
Source: GB1a, GB2a, GB3a, GB4a, GB5a, GB6a, GB7a, GB8a, GB9a and GB10a.
111
5.3 DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISONS OF INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE
GAMBLERS
The mean age of the interactive gamblers was 40.7 years (SD = 14.5), which was significantly
lower than the mean for non‐interactive gamblers (44.7 years, SD = 18.1), t(846.16) = 5.92, p
< 0.001, d = 0.41.
As shown in Table 5.2, a significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers were male,
employed full‐time, self‐employed or of ‘other’ employment status, in more manual forms
of work, had household incomes of between $90,000 and $120,000 per year, were born in
Australia, spoke only English at home, resided in Victoria, lived as a couple with children and
were more likely to consider themselves to be semi‐professional or fully professional
gamblers, compared to non‐interactive gamblers.
In contrast, non‐interactive gamblers were more likely to be female, divorced or separated,
employed part‐time or casually or to be a full‐time student, work as a community/personal
service worker or as a clerical/administrative worker, have been born outside of Australia,
speak a language other than English at home, live in NSW, South Australia or the ACT, be in
a couple with no children or be a one parent family, compared to interactive gamblers
(Table 5.2).
Table 5.2: Demographic comparison of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
Demographic factor
Gender
Levels
Male
Female
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 187.58, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.20
Age group
18 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 or more years old
χ2 (10, N = 4,594) = 148.88, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.18
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
438
134
76.6*
23.4
1,849
2,173
46.0
54.0*
22
37
94
76
80
65
44
43
34
26
51
3.8
6.5
16.4*
13.3*
14.0*
11.4
7.7
7.5
5.9
4.5
8.9
250
494
311
227
349
388
402
387
355
266
593
6.2*
12.3*
7.7
5.6
8.7
9.6
10.0
9.6
8.8*
6.6
14.7*
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: D1, D2.
112
Table 5.2: Demographic comparison of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (cont’d)
Demographic factor
Marital status
Levels
Married
Living with partner/de facto
Widowed
Divorced or separated
Never married
χ2 (4, N = 4,594) = 15.97, p = 0.003, Φ = 0.06
Highest level of education
Postgraduate Degree
University/college
Apprenticeship, technical certificate, diploma
Year 12 or equivalent
Less than year 12
χ2 (4, N = 4,595) = 9.19, p = 0.056
Work status
Full‐time employment
Part‐time or casual
employment
Self employed
Unemployed and looking for work
Full‐time student
Full‐time home duties
Retired
Sick or disability pension
Other
χ2 (8, N = 4,594) = 67.90, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.12
Occupation
Manager
Professional
Technician or trade worker
Community or personal service worker
Clerical or administrative worker
Sales worker
Machinery operator and driver
Labourer
Other
χ2 (8, N = 3,539) = 39.39, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.11
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
308
96
6
25
136
53.9
16.8
1.1
4.4
23.8
2,010
570
71
332
1,040
50.0
14.2
1.8
8.3*
25.9
82
171
130
128
61
14.3
29.9
22.7
22.4
10.7
591
973
971
996
492
14.7
24.2
24.1
24.8
12.2
323
60
56.4*
10.5
1,832
605
45.6
15.0*
49
16
43
8
50
10
14
8.6*
2.8
7.5
1.4
8.7
1.7
2.4*
196
103
600
111
448
86
40
4.9
2.6
14.9*
2.8
11.1
2.1
1.0
N
%
N
%
110
170
50
14
43
26
23
20
49
21.8
33.7
9.9
2.8
8.5
5.1
4.6*
4.0*
9.7
622
966
260
211
401
176
66
59
273
20.5
31.8
8.6
7.0*
13.2*
5.8
2.2
1.9
9.0
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: D7, D9, D10, D11.
113
Table 5.2: Demographic comparison of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (cont’d)
Demographic factor
Levels
Household income
$0 to $9,999
$10,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $69,999
$70,000 to $79,999
$80,000 to $89,999
$90,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $109,999
$110,000 to $119,999
$120,000 to $129,999
$130,000 to $139,999
$140,000 to $149,999
$150,000 or more
2
χ (15, N = 4,241) = 43.62, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.10
Country of birth
Australia
Other
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 13.03, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.05
English spoken at home
Yes
No
χ2 (1, N = 4,595) = 12.52, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.05
State of residence
Western Australia
New South Wales
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Tasmania
Northern Territory
χ2 (7, N = 4,595) = 36.02, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.09
Metro or rural
Major metropolitan city
Major regional city
Rural town/location
Remote town/location
χ2 (3, N = 4,594) = 2.16, p = 0.539
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
10
1.8
22
4.0
3.1
17
26
4.8
31
5.7
31
5.7
7.0
38
39
7.1
8.6
47
38
7.0*
48
8.8*
27
4.9*
4.0
22
19
3.5
2.9
16
115
21.1
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
176
4.8*
193
5.2
178
4.8
223
6.0
205
5.5
209
5.7
233
6.3
367
9.9*
277
7.5
179
4.8
223
6.0
98
2.7
161
4.4
181
4.9
132
3.6
660
17.9
491
81
85.8*
14.2
3,194
828
79.4
20.6*
534
38
93.4*
6.6
3,557
466
88.4
11.6*
6
162
182
124
33
49
13
3
1.0
28.3
31.8*
21.7
5.8
8.6
2.3
0.5
60
1,338
906
757
345
481
94
42
1.5
33.3*
22.5
18.8
8.6*
12.0*
2.3
1.0
336
112
115
9
58.7
19.6
20.1
1.6
2,467
732
744
79
61.3
18.2
18.5
2.0
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: D12, D15, D16, D3, D4.
114
Table 5.2: Demographic comparison of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (cont’d)
Demographic factor
Living arrangement
Levels
Single person
One parent family with children
Couple with children
Couple with no children
Group household
Other
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
χ2 (5, N = 4,592) = 28.61, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.08
ATSI origin
No
Yes, Aboriginal
Yes, Torres Strait Islander
57
16
375
76
35
11
10.0
2.8
65.8*
13.3
6.1
1.9
414
226
2,239
796
239
108
10.3
5.6*
55.7
19.8*
5.9
2.7
564
13
0
97.7
2.3
0.0
3,921
45
1
98.8
1.1
<0.1
Mobile phone only
Landline only
Both mobile phone and landline
118
15
439
20.6
2.6
76.7
701
88
3,234
17.4
2.2
80.4
12
2.1*
1
<0.1
40
520
7.0*
90.9
17
4,005
0.4
99.6*
χ2 (2, N = 4,544) = 5.15, p = 0.076
Mobile or landline at home
χ2 (2, N = 4,595) = 4.14, p = 0.126
Consider myself professional
Professional
gambler
gambler
Semi‐professional gambler
Amateur gambler
χ2 (2, N = 4,595) = 254.16, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.24
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: D8, D17, D18, GB13.
5.4 GAMBLING BEHAVIOUR OF INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE
GAMBLERS
This section compares the gambling behaviour of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
in terms of gambling participation, frequency and expenditure.
5.4.1 GAMBLING PARTICIPATION AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers engaged in sports betting, horse or
dog race betting, casino table games, keno, poker and betting on games of skill compared to
non‐interactive gamblers, while a significantly higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers
bet on electronic gaming machines or bingo compared to interactive gamblers (Table 5.3).
Furthermore, interactive gamblers engaged in significantly more forms of gambling, with
interactive gamblers betting on 4.18 (SD = 1.82) of the ten forms of gambling surveyed,
115
compared to 3.01 (SD = 1.62) for non‐interactive gamblers, t(706.21) = 14.64, p < 0.001, d =
1.10.
Table 5.3: Past year participation in different forms of gambling for interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers (N = 4,594)
Gambling form
Interactive
Gamblers
N
%
Non‐Interactive
Gamblers
N
%
Instant scratch tickets
266
46.5
1,987
49.4
Lottery, lotto or pools
tickets
Sports betting
444
77.3
3,110
77.6
434
75.9*
995
24.7
Horse or dog race betting
435
76.0*
1,309
32.5
Bingo
22
3.8
315
7.8*
Keno
176
30.8*
957
23.8
Poker
118
20.6*
330
8.2
Casino table games
177
30.9*
690
17.2
Betting on games of skill
34
5.9*
143
3.6
Electronic gaming machines
286
50.0
2,267
56.4*
Test statistic
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 1.69,
p = 0.194
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 0.025,
p = 0.874
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 611.03,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.37
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 402.42,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.30
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 11.70,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.05
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 13.14,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.05
χ2 (1, N = 4,595) = 87.89,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.14
2
χ (1, N = 4,595) = 62.24,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.12
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 7.71,
p = 0.005, Φ = 0.04
2
χ (1, N = 4,595) = 8.18,
p = 0.004, Φ = 0.04
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: GB1a, GB2a, GB3a, GB4a, GB5a, GB6a, GB7a, GB8a, GB9a and GB10a.
5.4.2 GAMBLING FREQUENCY AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Of those who reported taking part in each form of gambling, interactive gamblers engaged
in the following activities more frequently than non‐interactive gamblers: sports betting,
horse or dog race betting and poker, with some evidence also for lottery, lotto or pools
tickets, casino table games and electronic gaming machines. There was some evidence to
suggest that non‐interactive gamblers engaged in buying instant scratch tickets more
frequently than interactive gamblers (Table 5.4).
116
Table 5.4: Frequency of gambling on each form amongst interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers
Gambling form
Interactive gamblers
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
N
%
207
40
21
13
7
2
71.4
13.8*
7.2
4.5
2.4
0.7
1,592
176
178
177
31
11
73.5
8.1
8.2
8.2*
1.4
0.5
173
66
49
89
30
69
36.3
13.9
10.3
18.7
6.3
14.5*
1,481
405
289
728
158
268
44.5*
12.2
8.7
21.9
4.7
8.1
185
97
103
143
153
171
21.7
11.4*
12.1*
16.8*
18.0*
20.18
1,362
166
123
199
68
35
69.7*
8.5
6.3
10.2
3.5
1.8
187
94
87
111
96
138
26.2
13.2*
12.2*
15.6*
13.5*
19.4*
1,583
158
135
145
80
47
73.7*
7.4
6.3
6.8
3.7
2.2
13
2
2
1
0
0
72.2
11.1
11.1
5.6
0.0
0.0
179
21
10
36
2
0
72.2
8.5
4.0
14.5
0.8
0.0
Instant scratch tickets
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
χ2 (5, N = 2,455) = 16.05, p = 0.007, Φ = 0.08
Lottery, lotto or pools tickets
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
2
χ (5, N = 3,804) = 32.07, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.09
Sports betting
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
2
χ (5, N = 2,805) = 726.84, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.51
Horse or dog race betting
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
2
χ (5, N = 2,861) = 612.80, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.46
Bingo
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
2
χ (5, N = 265) = 3.11, p = 0.682
117
Table 5.4: Frequency of gambling on each form amongst interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers (cont’d)
Gambling form
Interactive gamblers
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
N
%
155
29
12
8
4
3
73.5
13.7
5.7
3.8
1.9
1.4
812
137
64
110
12
13
70.7
11.9
5.6
9.6
1.0
1.1
124
29
16
19
18
35
51.5
12.0*
6.6*
7.9*
7.5
14.5*
579
36
9
15
32
3
85.9*
5.3
1.3
2.2
4.7
0.4
255
21
7
6
2
2
87.0
7.2
2.4
2.0*
0.7
0.7*
1,002
90
38
8
4
1
87.7
7.9
3.3
0.7
0.3
0.1
41
8
4
4
3
6
62.1
12.1
6.1
6.1*
4.5*
9.1*
219
47
5
4
1
1
79.1*
17.0
1.8
1.4
0.4
0.4
164
52
20
18
11
4
61.0
19.3*
7.4
6.7
4.1
1.5
1,533
216
137
136
95
15
71.9*
10.1
6.4
6.4
4.5
0.7
Keno
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
χ2 (5, N = 1,359) = 8.77, p = 0.118
Poker
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
χ2 (5, N = 916) = 159.31, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.42
Casino table games not including poker
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
χ2 (5, N = 1,436) = 9.73, p = 0.083, Φ = 0.08
Other games of skill
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
χ2 (5, N = 343) = 39.26, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.34
Electronic gaming machines
Less than once a month
Once a month
2‐3 times a month
Once a week
2‐3 times a week
4 or more times a week
2
χ (5, N = 2,401) = 24.49, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.10
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher frequency for each row of data.
Source: GB1a, GB2a, GB3a, GB4a, GB5a, GB6a, GB7a, GB8a, GB9a and GB10a.
118
5.4.3 GAMBLING EXPENDITURE AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
When asked if they came out behind, ahead or broke even on each of the ten surveyed
forms of gambling, a significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers said they came
out ahead on sports betting, horse or dog race betting and poker compared to non‐
interactive gamblers, while a significantly higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers said
they came out ahead on electronic gaming machines and casino table games (Table 5.5).
Table 5.5: Proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers who report being behind, ahead
or breaking even for each form of gambling
Gambling form
Interactive gamblers
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
N
%
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
214
61
15
73.8
21.0
5.2
1,565
461
139
72.3
21.3
6.4
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
417
44
14
87.8
9.3
2.9
2,841
330
158
85.3
9.9
4.7
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
2
χ (2, N = 2,805) = 29.20, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.10
Horse or dog race betting
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
2
χ (2, N = 2,861) = 45.39, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.13
Bingo
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
χ2 (2, N = 265) = 1.02, p = 0.602
460
156
236
54.0
18.3
27.7*
1,080
489
384
55.3
25.0*
19.7
401
138
174
56.2
19.4
24.4*
1,299
549
300
60.5*
25.6*
14.0
11
3
3
64.7
17.6
17.6
169
54
25
68.1
21.8
10.1
Instant scratch tickets
χ2 (2, N = 2,455) = 0.72, p = 0.697
Lottery, lotto or pools tickets
χ2 (2, N = 3,804) = 3.44, p = 0.179
Sports betting
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher frequency for each row of data.
Source: GB1b, GB2b, GB3b, GB4b, GB5b.
119
Table 5.5: Proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers who report being behind, ahead
or breaking even for each form of gambling (cont’d)
Gambling form
Interactive gamblers
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
N
%
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
164
30
17
77.7
14.2
8.1
959
105
85
83.5
9.1
7.4
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
2
χ (2, N = 916) = 25.62, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.17
Casino table games not including poker
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
2
χ (2, N = 1,436) = 12.68, p = 0.002, Φ = 0.09
Other games of skill
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
2
χ (2, N = 342) = 1.77, p = 0.412
Electronic gaming machines
Behind
Broke even
Ahead
2
χ (2, N = 2,400) = 12.92, p = 0.002, Φ = 0.07
97
56
88
40.2
23.2
36.5*
267
258
150
39.6
38.2*
22.2
173
85
35
59.0
29.0*
11.9
652
259
231
57.1
22.7
20.2*
32
22
12
48.5
33.3
18.2
156
84
36
56.5
30.4
13.0
202
45
22
75.1*
16.7
8.2
1,423
358
350
66.8
16.8
16.4*
Keno
χ2 (2, N = 1,360) = 5.45, p = 0.066
Poker
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher frequency for each row of data.
Source: GB6b, GB7b, GB8b, GB9b and GB10b.
5.5 NON‐MONETARY SOCIAL CASINO GAME PLAY ON THE INTERNET
AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
There were no significant differences between interactive and non‐interactive gamblers in
terms of whether they had engaged in social casino games on the Internet (i.e. simulated
gambling games with no monetary prizes) (Table 5.6).
120
Table 5.6: Proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers who have played gambling
activities on the Internet without any money (weighted N = 4,594)
Gambling activities without money
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Yes
No
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 0.485, p = 0.486
168
404
29.4
70.6
Non‐interactive gamblers
N
%
1,239
2,783
30.8
69.2
Source: GB14.
In terms of social casino games used, gaming machines and poker were the two most
popular responses, followed by games of skill, casino table games and bingo (Table 5.7). A
significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers who play social casino games
engaged in social sports betting, horse and dog race betting, and poker as social casino
games compared to non‐interactive gamblers. Conversely, a significantly higher proportion
of non‐interactive social casino game players engaged in social gaming machines and skill
games compared to interactive gamblers. No other significant differences were present
between the groups in terms of forms of social casino game use.
Table 5.7: Social casino game use (up to three responses allowed, weighted N = 1,473)
From of social casino game
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
52
4.0
Instant scratch tickets
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
2
1.1
Sports betting
12
6.8*
25
1.9
Horse and dog race betting
9
5.1*
23
1.8
Bingo
21
11.9
213
16.4
Keno
5
2.9
28
2.2
Poker
104
59.1*
506
39.0
Casino table games
48
27.3
273
21.0
Gaming machines
53
30.3
592
45.6*
Games of skill
38
21.6
375
28.9*
Other
9
5.1
37
2.9
Test statistic
χ2 (1, N = 1,473) = 3.62,
p = 0.057
χ2 (1, N = 1,473) = 15.14,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.10
2
χ (1, N = 1,473) = 8.15,
p = 0.004, Φ = 0.07
2
χ (1, N = 1,473) = 2.34,
p = 0.126
2
χ (1, N = 1,473) = 0.35,
p = 0.557
2
χ (1, N = 1,473) = 25.75,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.13
χ2 (1, N = 1,473) = 3.52,
p = 0.061
χ2 (1, N = 1,473) = 14.71,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.10
χ2 (1, N = 1,474) = 4.10,
p = 0.043, Φ = 0.05
2
χ (1, N = 1,473) = 2.68,
p = 0.102
Source: GB15.
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
121
5.6 INTERACTIVE GAMBLING BEHAVIOUR
This section details several aspects of interactive gambling behaviour. These aspects include
commencement of interactive gambling; proportion of gambling conducted through
interactive media; preferences including medium, mode, location and time of day for
interactive gambling; payment methods, accounts and impacts of electronic payments for
interactive gambling; factors influencing choice of gambling websites; perceived advantages
and disadvantages of interactive gambling; reported sleeping and eating disruptions due to
interactive gambling; main casino table games and games of skill played on the Internet; and
length of interactive gambling sessions.
5.6.1 COMMENCEMENT OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
More than half of the interactive gamblers commenced gambling online in 2009 or later, as
shown in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8: Year respondents commenced interactive gambling (weighted N = 572)
Year
Interactive
gamblers N
11
1
4
5
8
20
8
13
14
18
26
26
55
42
50
96
86
88
1
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Interactive
gamblers %
1.9
0.3
0.7
0.9
1.4
3.5
1.4
2.2
2.4
3.2
4.5
4.5
9.6
7.3
8.8
16.7
15.1
15.4
0.2
Source: I3.
Convenience was the most important factor that influenced interactive gamblers to first
gamble online (65.1%), followed by price (36.1%) and the physical comfort of gambling from
122
home (26.9%). The constant availability of online gambling was also an important factor
(21.4%), as was the greater number of options and games available (18.3%) (Table 5.9).
Table 5.9: Factors that had the greatest influence on the decision to start gambling via an
interactive medium (up to three responses allowed, weighted N = 572)
Factor
Convenience of online access
Price including bonuses, free credit, odds, payout rates
Physical comfort of gambling from home
Access (available 24/7)
Greater number of betting options and games available
Privacy/anonymity
Advertising/marketing
Dislike of or discomfort with land‐based venues
Other
Use of free‐play sites
Interactive
gamblers N
372
206
154
123
105
50
49
46
29
22
Interactive
gamblers %
65.1
36.1
26.9
21.4
18.3
8.8
8.6
8.1
5.0
3.8
Source: I10.
5.6.2 PROPORTION OF GAMBLING THROUGH INTERACTIVE MEDIA
Of those classified as interactive gamblers, 77.6% did at least half of their gambling online,
while the remaining 22.4% stated that they mostly gambled offline but sometimes gambled
online (Table 5.10).
Table 5.10: Proportion of respondents agreeing with statements relating to online and offline
gambling patterns (weighted N = 572)
Statement
I have only gambled online in the last 12 months
I have mostly gambled online, but I have sometimes gambled offline
About half of my gambling has been online and half has been offline
I have mostly gambled offline, but I have sometimes gambled online
Interactive Interactive
gamblers
gamblers
%
N
111
19.5
272
47.5
61
10.6
128
22.4
Source: I1.
Table 5.11 indicates the proportion of gambling on each online form of gambling activity,
amongst those who indicated that they engaged in online forms. In particular, more than
50% of those who engaged in sports betting, bingo, keno and games of skill online did so
solely online, with approximately 40% of lottery/lotto/pools and horse or dog racing
interactive gamblers participating in those gambling forms solely online. Conversely, only
25.5% of those who had played poker online did so solely online. Similarly, only 16.7% of
123
those who played gaming machines online did so solely online and only 5.0% of those who
had bought instant scratch tickets online did so solely online.
Table 5.11: Proportion of gambling done online amongst those who gamble online for each form
Instant scratch tickets
Lottery/lotto/pools tickets
Sports betting
Horse or dog racing
Bingo
Keno
Poker
Casino table games, excluding poker
Games of skill
Gaming machines
Weighted
N
70
1,287
2,204
2,074
47
50
499
182
102
189
% Solely
online
5.0
42.6
54.6
39.4
64.2
64.8
25.5
37.8
60.4
16.7
Mean
SD
Median
18.4
64.1
87.0
79.9
73.5
69.8
59.2
56.8
77.2
49.1
29.1
39.7
24.2
28.5
38.8
42.7
37.7
40.5
32.3
39.7
10.0
85.0
100.0
95.0
100.0
100.0
65.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
Source: GB1c, GB2c, GB3c, GB4c, GB5c, GB6c, GB7c, GB8c, GB9c, GB10c.
Note: The ‘% solely online’ column indicates the proportion of the weighted N that stated that they do
100% of their gambling for that form online.
5.6.3 PREFERENCES FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING: MODE, LOCATION AND TIME
Most interactive gamblers either preferred interactive gambling to land‐based gambling
(54.5%) or at least liked both modes equally (31.0%), while the remaining 14.5% of
interactive gamblers preferred to gamble in land‐based venues (Table 5.12).
Table 5.12: Proportion of respondents who prefer interactive gambling to land‐based or telephone
gambling (weighted N = 572)
Preference
Interactive
gamblers N
312
83
177
Prefer interactive gambling
Prefer land‐based gambling
I like both equally
Interactive
gamblers %
54.5
14.5
31.0
Source: I4.
The vast majority of interactive gamblers (86.2%) preferred to gamble online using a
computer or laptop, while 13.4% preferred a more mobile device (mobile phone or tablet),
as shown in Table 5.13.
124
Table 5.13: Preferred mode for accessing the Internet for gambling (weighted N = 572)
Preferred mode
Interactive
gamblers N
493
55
22
1
1
Computer/laptop
Mobile/smart phone
Other portable device (e.g., iPad or similar)
Television
Other
Interactive
gamblers %
86.2
9.6
3.8
0.2
0.2
Source: I6.
Most (92.1%) interactive gamblers preferred to gamble from home and 90.1% did most of
their interactive gambling between midday and midnight (Tables 5.14 and 5.15).
Table 5.14: Preferred location for interactive gambling (weighted N = 572)
Preferred location
Home
Work
When away from home and work e.g., travelling, waiting, etc
Interactive
gamblers N
527
25
20
Interactive
gamblers %
92.1
4.3
3.6
Source: I2.
Table 5.15: Preferred time of day for interactive gambling (weighted N = 572)
Preferred time of day
Interactive
gamblers N
52
248
267
5
6am ‐ 12pm
12pm ‐ 6pm
6pm ‐ midnight
Midnight ‐ 6am
Interactive
gamblers %
9.1
43.3
46.7
0.8
Source: I5.
5.6.4 PAYMENT METHODS, ACCOUNTS AND IMPACTS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS FOR
INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
The most common method of payment for online gambling amongst interactive gamblers
was a credit card (35.9%), followed by debit cards (25.4%) and direct bank transfers (14.0%)
(Table 5.16).
125
Table 5.16: Usual payment method for online gambling (weighted N = 572)
Payment method
Interactive
gamblers N
205
145
80
43
30
24
22
8
6
5
4
0
0
0
Credit card
Debit card
Direct bank transfer
BPay
PayPal
Poli
Other
Pre‐paid credit card
Money transfer (e.g., Western Union)
Moneybookers
Neteller
Ukash
Cheque
Paysafecard
Interactive
gamblers %
35.9
25.4
14.0
7.5
5.3
4.3
3.9
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Source: I7.
More than 80% of interactive gamblers believed that using a credit card or electronic funds
transfer for online transactions had no impact on the amount that they spent while
gambling compared to cash transactions, while 12.0% believed that using these methods to
pay for gambling increased their spending (Table 5.17).
Table 5.17: Reported impact of using credit card or electronic money compared to cash for
interactive gambling (weighted N = 572)
Impact on spending
Interactive
gamblers N
475
69
28
No impact on spending
Increased spending
Decreased spending
Interactive
gamblers %
83.1
12.0
4.9
Source: I16.
Almost half of the interactive gamblers surveyed had multiple accounts over different online
betting sites (Table 5.18).
Table 5.18: Number of separate interactive gambling accounts (weighted N = 572)
Number of accounts
Interactive
gamblers N
309
122
83
23
35
1
2
3‐4
5‐6
More than 6
Source: I8.
126
Interactive
gamblers %
54.0
21.2
14.6
4.1
6.1
5.6.5 FACTORS INFLUENCING CHOICE OF WEBSITES FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
The most commonly cited factors that influence site choice for interactive gambling were
favourable prices (42.8%), reputation (30.4%) and the amount of betting options and games
available (25.8%) (Table 5.19).
Table 5.19: Factors that influence the decision of Australian interactive gamblers to gamble at one
Internet site over another (up to three responses allowed, weighted N = 572)
Factor
Price including bonuses, free credit, odds, payout rates
Reputation
Greater number of betting options and games available
Customer protection: fairness of games, security of deposits and
account information
Personal recommendation
Fast payout rates
Legally provided/licensed site
Advertising/marketing
Better game experience/interface
Existing account with land‐based operator
Other
Jurisdiction where site is regulated
Software used
Responsible gambling tools & resources e.g., account
information, personal limits
Social features e.g., instant chat, message boards, forums
Few personal details required
Number of gambling forms available
Interactive
gamblers N
245
174
148
93
Interactive
gamblers %
42.8
30.4
25.8
16.2
80
76
69
60
50
45
34
32
28
24
14.0
13.3
12.1
10.5
8.8
7.9
6.0
5.6
4.9
4.2
23
15
13
4.0
2.7
2.3
Source: I11.
Around two‐thirds of interactive gambler participants would prefer to gamble on
domestically regulated sites, while approximately one‐third had no preference (Table 5.20).
Table 5.20: Preferences for domestic vs offshore gambling websites (weighted N = 572)
Site preference
Interactive
gamblers N
374
6
192
Domestically regulated sites
Offshore sites
No preference either way
Source: I9.
127
Interactive
gamblers %
65.4
1.0
33.6
5.6.6 PERCEIVED ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
The most commonly cited advantages of interactive gambling were convenience (62.9%),
price (36.5%) and physical comfort (32.1%) (Table 5.21). The most commonly cited
disadvantages were that it is easier to spend money (30.9%), that it is too convenient
(21.3%) and concerns about account safety (20.2%) (Table 5.22). Furthermore, 30.3% stated
that there were no disadvantages of interactive gambling compared to land‐based
gambling.
Table 5.21: Main advantages of interactive gambling over land‐based gambling, as reported by
Australian interactive gamblers (up to three responses allowed, weighted N = 572)
Factor
Convenience – more convenient access online
Price including bonuses, free credit, odds, payout rates
Physical comfort of gambling from home
Greater number of betting options and games available
Access – unable to easily access land‐based venues/available 24‐
7 from any location
Privacy/anonymity
Lower secondary costs e.g., petrol, food and beverages
Dislike of or discomfort with land‐based venues
More enjoyable game experience
No advantages over land‐based gambling
Responsible gambling tools & resources e.g., account
information, personal limits
Use of free‐play sites
Social features e.g., instant chat, message boards, forums
Other
Interactive
gamblers N
360
209
184
131
129
Interactive
gamblers %
62.9
36.5
32.1
22.9
22.5
58
56
54
43
31
21
10.1
9.8
9.5
7.5
5.4
3.7
19
18
13
3.4
3.1
2.2
Source: I12.
Table 5.22: Main disadvantages of interactive gambling over land‐based gambling, as reported by
Australian interactive gamblers (up to three responses allowed, weighted N = 572)
Interactive
Factor
Interactive
gamblers %
gamblers N
Easier to spend money
177
30.9
No disadvantages of Internet gambling
173
30.3
Too convenient
122
21.3
Concerns about account safety including money and personal
116
20.2
information provided
Unreliable technology or Internet access
101
17.6
More addictive
84
14.7
Less enjoyable game, environment, or social experience
83
14.5
Difficulty verifying fairness of games
50
8.7
Lack of responsible gambling measures
33
5.8
Other
22
3.9
Illegality
19
3.4
Difficult to use
13
2.3
Source: I13.
128
5.6.7 REPORTED SLEEPING AND EATING DISRUPTIONS DUE TO INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Most interactive gamblers (87.2%) had not experienced any sleep disruptions due to
interactive gambling and 95.3% had not experienced disruptions to eating patterns due to
interactive gambling (Table 5.23).
Table 5.23: Reported disruption to sleeping and eating patterns due to interactive gambling (up to
three responses allowed, weighted N = 572)
Question
Response
Interactive Interactive
gamblers
gamblers
N
%
Has online gambling disrupted your sleeping patterns?
No
Yes
499
72
87.2
12.8
No
Yes
545
26
95.3
4.7
Has online gambling disrupted your eating patterns?
Source: I14, I15.
5.6.8 MAIN CASINO TABLE GAMES AND GAMES OF SKILL PLAYED ON THE INTERNET
Tables 5.24 and 5.25 indicate the main casino table games (excluding poker) and the main
games of skill in which interactive gamblers participated. Both tables clearly indicate that
card games are the most popular forms.
Table 5.24: Casino table games, not including poker, played on the Internet (up to three responses
allowed, weighted N = 182)
Game
Interactive
gamblers N
117
60
37
23
18
16
0
20
Blackjack
Roulette
Slot machines
Video poker machines
Craps
Baccarat
Pai gow
Other
Interactive
gamblers %
64.5
33.2
20.5
12.7
9.6
9.0
0.0
11.1
Source: GB8f.
Note: Weighted N is based on the total number of interactive gamblers who answered the question, not on
the weighted N given in Table 12.
129
Table 5.25: Games of skill played on the Internet (up to three responses allowed, weighted N =
102)
Game
Interactive
gamblers N
55
19
17
13
8
5
4
2
30
Card games
Mahjong
Video games
Pool
Strategy games
Board games
Bowling
Darts
Other
Interactive
gamblers %
53.7
19.1
16.4
12.5
8.1
4.4
3.6
1.8
29.5
Source: GB9f.
Note: Weighted N is based on the total number of interactive gamblers who answered the question, not on
the weighted N given in Table 12.
5.6.9 LENGTH OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING SESSIONS
The data for time spent per interactive gambling session were skewed by some large
responses. Means were thus considered to be inaccurate and medians are reported instead.
Poker sessions appear to last the longest (median = 90 minutes), followed by games of skill,
gaming machines and bingo (median = 30 minutes). All other forms (sports betting, horse or
dog race betting, keno and casino table games excluding poker) were found to have a
median session length of 10 minutes.
5.7 PROBLEM GAMBLING AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE
GAMBLERS
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers were classified as low risk or
moderate risk gamblers according to the PGSI, whereas a significantly higher proportion of
non‐interactive gamblers were classified as non‐problem gamblers (Table 5.26). Results for
each of the nine PGSI items are shown in Table 5.27.
Furthermore, when treating the PGSI as a continuous scale, interactive gamblers had
significantly higher scores on average (M = 0.91, SD = 2.0) compared to non‐interactive
gamblers (M = 0.52, SD = 1.8), t(716.34) = 4.42, p < 0.001, d = 0.33.
130
Table 5.26 Past year prevalence of problem gambling among interactive and non‐interactive
gamblers in 2012/2013 (weighted N = 4,595)
PGSI Category
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non problem gambler (PGSI = 0)
Low risk gambler (PGSI = 1 to 2)
Moderate risk gambler (PGSI = 3 to 7)
Problem gambler (PGSI = 8 or higher)
χ2 (3, N = 4,595) = 88.45, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.14)
386
124
56
6
67.5
21.7*
9.8*
1.0
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
3,359
419
207
38
83.5*
10.4
5.1
0.9
Note: As asterisk (*) indicates a significantly higher proportion in each row.
Source: A combination of PGSI1, PGSI2, PGSI3, PGSI4, PGSI5, PGSI6, PGSI7, PGSI8 and PGSI9.
In terms of the individual PGSI items, the biggest influences were observed for chasing
losses, with 9.6% of interactive gamblers reporting chasing losses at least sometimes,
compared to 4.6% of non‐interactive gamblers. A significantly higher proportion of
interactive gamblers reported being criticised about their gambling as well as feeling guilty
about their gambling compared to non‐interactive gamblers (Table 5.27).
Table 5.27: Responses to the Problem Gambling Severity Index questions by interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers (weighted N = 4,594)
PGSI Items
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Have you bet more than you could really afford to lose?
Never
512
89.7
3,728
Sometimes
54
9.5*
253
Most of the time
3
0.5
26
Almost always
2
0.4
16
χ2 (3, N = 4,594) = 8.14, p = 0.043, Φ = 0.04
Have you felt guilty about the way you gamble or what happens when you gamble?
Never
461
80.6
3,485
Sometimes
103
18.0*
458
Most of the time
6
1.0
35
Almost always
2
0.3
43
χ2 (3, N = 4,593) = 22.93, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.07
Have you needed to gamble with larger amounts of money to get the same feeling of
excitement?
Never
517
90.4
3,836
Sometimes
51
8.9*
152
Most of the time
3
0.5
26
Almost always
1
0.2
8
χ2 (3, N = 4,594) = 31.35, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.08
Note: As asterisk (*) indicates a significantly higher proportion in each row.
Source: PGSI1, PGSI2, PGSI3.
131
92.7*
6.3
0.6
0.4
86.7*
11.4
0.9
1.1
95.4*
3.8
0.6
0.2
Table 5.27: Responses to the Problem Gambling Severity Index questions by interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers (weighted N = 4,594) (cont’d)
PGSI Items
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
When you gambled, did you go back another day to try to win back the money you lost?
Never
483
84.4
3,852
95.8*
Sometimes
81
14.2*
146
3.6
Most of the time
6
1.0*
15
0.4
Almost always
2
0.3
9
0.2
χ2 (3, N = 4,594) = 124.55, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.17
Have you borrowed money or sold anything to get money to gamble?
Never
564
98.6
3,983
99.0
Sometimes
7
1.2
35
0.9
Most of the time
1
0.2
3
0.1
Almost always
0
0.0
1
0.0
2
χ (3, N = 4,594) = 1.41, p = 0.702
Has your gambling caused any financial problems for you or your household?
Never
556
97.4
3,948
98.1
Sometimes
13
2.3
57
1.4
Most of the time
1
0.2
11
0.3
Almost always
1
0.2
7
0.2
2
χ (3, N = 4,594) = 2.64, p = 0.450
Has gambling caused you any health problems, including stress or anxiety?
Never
544
94.9
3,922
97.5*
Sometimes
26
4.5*
84
2.1
Most of the time
2
0.3
10
0.2
Almost always
1
0.2
7
0.2
χ2 (3, N = 4,596) = 13.10, p = 0.004, Φ = 0.05
Have people criticised your betting or told you that you had a gambling problem, regardless of
whether or not you thought it was true?
Never
521
91.1
3,901
97.0*
Sometimes
46
8.0*
107
2.7
Most of the time
4
0.7
10
0.2
Almost always
1
0.2
4
0.1
χ2 (3, N = 4,594) = 48.96, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.10
How often have you felt that you might have a problem with gambling?
Never
521
91.1
3,837
95.4*
Sometimes
47
8.2*
156
3.9
Most of the time
3
0.5
15
0.4
Almost always
1
0.2
15
0.4
2
χ (3, N = 4,595) = 23.17, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.07
Note: As asterisk (*) indicates a significantly higher proportion in each row.
Source: , PGSI4, PGSI5, PGSI6, PGSI7, PGSI8, PGSI9.
132
The forms of gambling that contributed most to gambling problems (amongst those
classified as being moderate risk or problem gamblers) differed for interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers, χ2 (11, N = 1,668) = 369.77, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.47. Interactive gamblers
were more likely to report horse or dog race betting or sports betting as the cause of their
problems, while non‐interactive gamblers were more likely to nominate electronic gaming
machines or instant scratch tickets. Approximately one‐quarter of both groups stated that
they did not have any gambling problems, despite meeting problem gambling criteria (Table
5.28).
Table 5.28: Gambling form that has contributed most to gambling problems among Australian
interactive and non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers (first response only,
weighted N = 1,668)
Gambling form
Instant scratch tickets
Lottery, lotto or pools tickets
Sports betting
Horse or dog race betting
Bingo
Keno
Poker
Casino table games
Electronic gaming machines
Betting on games of skill
Other
I have not experienced problems from my gambling
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
1
0.3
7
2.1
55
16.3*
105
31.2*
0
0.0
0
0.0
8
2.4
14
4.2
65
19.3
0
0.0
2
0.6
80
23.7
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
67
5.0*
34
2.6
34
2.6
60
4.5
1
0.1
9
0.7
31
2.3
42
3.2
666
50.0*
0
0.0
2
0.2
385
28.9
Note: Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: PG1.
In terms of the gambling medium that most contributed to their gambling problem, most
interactive gamblers nominated the Internet and most land‐based gamblers nominated
land‐based or venue‐based gambling services. Almost one‐third of interactive gamblers
attributed their gambling problems to land‐based or venue‐based gambling services and
14.3% of non‐interactive gamblers attributed their problems to the Internet or interactive
television, which suggests they had engaged in interactive gambling, but not during the 12
months prior to the survey (Table 5.29).
133
Table 5.29 Gambling medium that has contributed most to gambling problems among Australian
interactive and non‐interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers (first response only,
weighted N = 1,366)
Form of gambling
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
146
49.7*
38
12.9*
8
2.7*
1
0.3
96
32.7
5
1.7
Internet via computer/laptop
Internet via mobile/smart phone
Internet via other portable device
Interactive television
Land‐based or venue‐based gambling
Betting via telephone
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
144
13.4
5
0.5
0
0.0
4
0.4
885
82.6*
34
3.2
Note: Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: PG3.
χ2 (5, N = 1,366) = 367.33, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.52
The above findings suggest that at least some interactive gamblers may have had gambling
issues before they gambled online and this is illustrated in Table 5.30, where almost half of
the interactive gamblers with moderate risk gambling or problem gambling stated that their
gambling problems existed before they gambled online. Of those who stated that they had
gambling problems before starting to gamble online, 30.4% agreed or strongly agreed that
online gambling had exacerbated their gambling problem. Of those who did not have
gambling problems before they gambled online, 46.6% agreed or strongly agreed that
interactive gambling had contributed to their gambling problems.
Furthermore, some non‐interactive gamblers attributed their gambling problems to
interactive gambling, which suggests that these respondents used and developed a problem
with Internet gambling prior to but not during the 12 months before the survey.
134
Table 5.30: Influence of interactive gambling on problem gambling amongst moderate risk and
problem interactive gamblers
Question
Response
N
%
Did any problems experienced from gambling emerge before or after first gambling online?
Before
300
52.5
After
272
47.5
(For those who had problems before first interactive gambling) How much do you agree or
disagree that online gambling has exacerbated any gambling problems?
Strongly agree
21
6.9
Agree
73
24.3
Neither agree nor disagree
107
35.7
Disagree
64
21.4
Strongly disagree
35
11.7
(For those who had problems after first interactive gambling) How much do you agree or
disagree that online gambling has contributed to any gambling problems?
Strongly agree
46
Agree
81
Neither agree nor disagree
87
Disagree
36
Strongly disagree
23
16.8
29.8
31.9
13.1
8.4
Source: PG4, PG5, PG6.
5.8 GAMBLING HELP‐SEEKING BEHAVIOUR AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND
NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
There was no significant difference between interactive and non‐interactive gamblers in
terms of the proportion who had ever thought that they may need help for their gambling.
However, when asked where they would like to seek help, a significantly higher proportion
of interactive gamblers would prefer an online service compared to non‐interactive
gamblers, whereas a significantly higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers would
prefer a telephone service compared to interactive gamblers (Table 5.31).
Interactive moderate risk or problem gamblers were significantly more likely to have sought
help compared to non‐interactive moderate risk or problem gamblers, but there was only
one significant difference between the groups in terms of where they had sought help: non‐
interactive moderate risk or problem gamblers were more likely to use self‐help strategies
compared to interactive moderate risk or problem gamblers.
135
Table 5.31: Help‐seeking behaviour amongst moderate risk and problem interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers (weighted N = 1,666)
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Have you ever thought that you needed help in relation to your gambling?
Yes
84
25.0
392
No
252
75.0
937
χ2 (1, N = 1,665) = 2.66, p = 0.103
Have you ever sought help in relation to your gambling?
Yes
73
21.7
368
No
263
78.3*
962
2
χ (1, N = 1,666) = 4.87, p = 0.027, Φ = 0.05
(Of those who had sought help) Where have you sought help in relation to your gambling?
(Multiple response, weighted N = 653 for this question)
Face‐to‐face from a specialist gambling counsellor
12
10.3
91
Face‐to‐face from a non‐gambling specialist
9
7.8
43
professional
From a gambling helpline
13
11.2
90
From online or email gambling counselling
5
4.3
48
From a residential treatment program
1
0.9
13
From a face‐to‐face support group
7
6.0
32
From an online support group or discussion board
4
3.4
23
From family or friends
17
14.7
73
By excluding yourself from a land‐based gambling
10
8.7
61
venue or outlet
By excluding yourself from a gambling website or
6
5.2
12
online gambling operator
Through self‐help strategies
17
14.7
126
Other sources
1
0.9
9
From where would you seek help in the future in relation to your gambling problems?
A face‐to‐face service
97
28.9
380
An online service
64
19.0*
118
A telephone service
45
13.4
380
Somewhere else
2
0.6
12
Would not seek help from a professional service
128
38.1
440
2
χ (4, N = 1,666) = 51.93, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.18
29.5
70.5
27.7*
72.3
16.9
8.0
16.8
8.9
2.4
6.0
4.3
13.6
11.4
2.2
23.5*
1.7
28.6
8.9
28.6*
0.9
33.1
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: PG7, PG8, PG10.
136
5.9 SUBSTANCE USE, MENTAL HEALTH AND HARMS FROM GAMBLING
AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
These sections present results from the National Online Survey relating to substance use,
mental health and reported harms from gambling amongst the interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers.
5.9.1 USE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS WHILE GAMBLING AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐
INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Non‐interactive gamblers were significantly more likely to never drink while gambling
compared to interactive gamblers, although a significantly higher proportion of non‐
interactive gamblers (9.4%) reported always drinking alcohol whilst gambling compared to
3.5% of interactive gamblers.
No significant differences were observed in terms of use of recreational drugs while
gambling (Table 5.32).
Table 5.32: Frequency of using alcohol and recreational drug use while engaging in gambling in the
last 12 months (weighted N = 4,594)
Substance use measure
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Frequency of alcohol use while gambling
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Almost always
2
χ (3, N = 4,594) = 66.45, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.12
Frequency of drug use while gambling
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Almost always
2
χ (3, N = 4,593) = 2.73 p = 0.435
204
299
49
20
35.7
52.3*
8.6
3.5
1,792
1,440
413
377
44.6*
35.8
10.3
9.4*
554
13
3
1
97.0
2.3
0.5
0.2
3,892
72
47
11
96.8
1.8
1.2
0.3
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: GB17, GB18.
137
5.9.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS AND PERSONAL PROBLEMS FROM GAMBLING AMONGST
INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
The Kessler 6 scale was used to measure psychological distress amongst all participants. For
each of the six items, the response options were ‘none of the time’ (scored as 0), ‘a little of
the time’ (scored as 1), ‘some of the time’ (scored as 2), ‘most of the time’ (scored as 3) and
‘all of the time’ (scored as 4). A sum of the scores on all six items was calculated for all
participants.
The mean Kessler 6 score according to this scoring method was 2.2 (SD = 3.5) for non‐
interactive gamblers, which was significantly higher than the mean score for interactive
gamblers (M = 1.8, SD = 2.9), t(833.00) = 3.30, p = 0.001, d = 0.23, although this difference is
not clinically meaningful.
Participants were also classified into ‘high psychological distress’ (Kessler 6 scores of 13 or
higher) and ‘not high psychological distress’ (Kessler 6 scores of 12 or lower). No significant
difference was observed between interactive gamblers (1.0% exhibiting high psychological
distress) and non‐interactive gamblers (2.1% exhibiting high psychological distress), χ2 (1, N
= 4,594) = 2.92, p = 0.087.
When asked if the psychological distress (Kessler 6) symptoms were due to their gambling, a
significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers (11.2%) reported that they were due
to gambling compared to 3.3% of non‐interactive gamblers. Furthermore, a significantly
higher proportion of interactive gamblers stated that life was less enjoyable due to
gambling, that they wanted to stop but did not think that they could, that their need to
gamble had been too strong to control, that gambling was more important than anything
else they do, that gambling had constantly been on their mind and that they had gambled to
escape from their worries or troubles during the last 12 months (Table 5.33).
138
Table 5.33: Personal problems due to gambling in the last 12 months (N = 4,594)
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Gambling has been the main
cause of Kessler 6 symptoms
Been under a doctor’s care
because of depression,
stress or anxiety
Seriously thought about or
attempted suicide as a result
of gambling
Life has been less enjoyable
Wanted to stop gambling
but did not think I could
My need to gamble has been
too strong to control
Gambling has been more
important than anything
else I do
Gambling has constantly
been on my mind
I have gambled in order to
escape from worries or
troubles
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
64
11.2*
134
3.3
19
3.3
98
2.4
14
2.4
87
2.2
93
16.3*
241
6.0
51
8.9*
162
4.0
53
9.3*
170
4.2
73
12.8*
122
3.0
123
21.5*
275
6.8
66
11.5*
296
7.4
Test statistic
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 74.96,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.13
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 1.58,
p = 0.209
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 0.19,
p = 0.664
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 78.25,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.13
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 27.06,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.08
2
χ (1, N = 4,593) = 27.66,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.08
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 116.62,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.16
χ2 (1, N = 4,593) = 136.59,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.17
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 12.05,
p = 0.001, Φ = 0.05
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data. For questions C2 and C4, the
percentages refer to those who stated that the events had occurred due to gambling, regardless of how
often they occurred.
Source: C2, C3, C4.
5.9.3 INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS DUE TO GAMBLING AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐
INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers reported the following
interpersonal problems due to gambling compared to non‐interactive gamblers: not enough
time to look after family interests, arguments in the family, friends and family finding the
gambler difficult to trust and people avoiding the gambler due to their gambling. However,
a significantly higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers reported break‐ups of
relationships or losing contact with their children due to gambling compared to interactive
gamblers (Table 5.34).
139
Table 5.34: Interpersonal problems from gambling in the last 12 months (N = 4,594)
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Gambling has left me with
not enough time to look
after my family’s interests
Gambling has caused
arguments with my family
Gambling has led to
incidents of domestic abuse
within my household
Gambling has led to other
incidents of abuse involving
family, friends or others
Gambling has impacted
negatively on my
relationship with any of my
children
People close to me have had
difficulties trusting me due
to my gambling
I, and people close to me,
have put off doing things
together as a result of your
gambling
Gambling has led to the
break‐up of an important
relationship in my life, or
separation or divorce
Gambling has led to me
losing contact with any of
my children
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Test statistic
χ2 (1, N = 4,310) = 45.55,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.10
39
7.0*
77
2.1
48
8.6*
154
4.1
7
1.3
27
0.7
7
1.3
23
0.6
χ2 (1, N = 4,325) = 2.93,
p = 0.087
15
2.8
39
1.1
χ2 (1, N = 4,256) = 11.14,
p = 0.001, Φ = 0.05
16
2.9*
56
1.5
χ2 (1, N = 4,331) = 5.62,
p = 0.018, Φ = 0.04
28
5.0*
52
1.4
χ2 (1, N = 4,331) = 35.39,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.09
43
8.5
419
12.3*
χ2 (1, N = 3,906) = 6.18,
p = 0.013, Φ = 0.04
41
9.0
412
13.3*
χ2 (1, N = 3,559) = 6.49,
p = 0.011, Φ = 0.04
χ2 (1, N = 4,328) = 22.29,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.07
χ2 (1, N = 4,320) = 1.79,
p = 0.181
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data. For question C5, the
percentages refer to those who stated that the events had occurred due to gambling, regardless of how
often they occurred.
Source: C5, C6.
5.9.4 WORK OR STUDY PROBLEMS DUE TO GAMBLING AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐
INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Table 5.35 illustrates differences in work and study problems due to gambling amongst
interactive and non‐interactive gamblers. A significantly higher proportion of interactive
140
gamblers reported losing time to work or study or reduced performance at work due to
gambling, while a significantly higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers reported
changing or losing jobs due to gambling.
Table 5.35: Work and study problems due to gambling in the last 12 months (N = 4,594)
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
I have lost time from work
or study due to gambling
Gambling has adversely
affected how well I perform
at work
Changed jobs due to
gambling related problems
Sacked from my job due to
gambling related problems
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Test statistic
1.8 χ2 (1, N = 4,041) = 119.52,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.17
2
1.6 χ (1, N = 4,036) = 51.51,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.11
56
10.3*
63
35
6.5*
55
26
5.1
328
9.9*
25
4.9
318
9.6*
χ2 (1, N = 3,824) = 12.38,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.06
2
χ (1, N = 3,811) = 12.33,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.06
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data. For question C7, the
percentages refer to those who stated that the events had occurred due to gambling, regardless of how
often they occurred.
Source: C7, C8
5.9.5 FINANCIAL PROBLEMS DUE TO GAMBLING AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐
INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
In terms of financial problems due to gambling, a significantly higher proportion of
interactive gamblers reported that it was difficult to make it from one payday (or pension
day) to the next. Conversely, a significantly higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers
reported being declared bankrupt, being evicted from their house or having it repossessed
or having to sell it and the loss of superannuation, investment or savings funds (Table 5.36).
Together, these results pertaining to personal, interpersonal, work/study and financial
harms from gambling suggest that interactive gamblers experience more problems than
non‐interactive gamblers, such as time loss, but non‐interactive gamblers experience more
severe issues.
141
Table 5.36: Financial problems due to gambling in the last 12 months (N = 4,594)
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
I have borrowed from someone
and not paid them back as a
result of my gambling
My gambling has left me with
no money to pay my rent or
mortgage
My gambling has left me with
no money to pay my household
bills
My gambling has made it harder
to make money last from one
payday (or pension day) to the
next
Debts from my gambling caused
me to be declared bankrupt
My gambling has led to the sale,
repossession or eviction from
my house
My gambling has led to the loss
of superannuation, investment
or savings funds
My gambling has led me to steal
or to obtain money illegally
(even if I intended to pay it
back)?
I have been in trouble with the
police because of activities
related to my gambling
I have appeared in court on
charges relating to my gambling
Gambling has led to a prison
sentence?
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Test statistic
7
1.3
36
1.0
χ2 (1, N = 4,162) = 0.33,
p = 0.568
8
1.5
37
1.0
χ2 (1, N = 4,130) = 0.78,
p = 0.376
12
2.2
66
1.8
χ2 (1, N = 4,149) = 0.28,
p = 0.599
35
6.3*
125
3.5
11
2.1
145
4.2*
10
1.9
144
4.2*
15
2.8
166
4.8*
χ2 (1, N = 3,993) = 4.16,
p = 0.041, Φ = 0.03
9
1.6
94
2.3
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 1.33,
p = 0.248
6
1.0
89
2.2
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 3.35,
p = 0.067
5
0.9
88
2.2
6
1.0
87
2.2
χ2 (1, N = 4,161) =
10.49,
p = 0.001, Φ = 0.05
χ2 (1, N = 3,972) = 5.45,
p = 0.020, Φ = 0.04
2
χ (1, N = 3,947) = 6.48,
p = 0.011, Φ = 0.04
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 4.36,
p = 0.037, Φ = 0.03
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 3.13,
p = 0.077
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data. For question C9, the percentages
refer to those who stated that the events had occurred due to gambling, regardless of how often they
occurred.
Source: C9, C10, C11.
142
5.10 ATTITUDES TO GAMBLING, OPINIONS ABOUT PROMOTION AND LEGALITY
OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING, AND GAMBLING FALLACIES AMONGST INTERACTIVE
AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
This section reports results for several questions pertaining to attitudes to and opinions
about various aspects of gambling and interactive gambling, as well as gambling fallacies
amongst the interactive and non‐interactive gamblers.
5.10.1 PERCEIVED BENEFIT AND HARM FROM GAMBLING AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐
INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers were more likely to consider
gambling as having some benefit to society compared to non‐interactive gamblers (Table
5.37).
Table 5.37: Perceived benefit and harm of gambling to society amongst interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers (N = 4,594)
Perceived benefit and harm of gambling
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
The harm far outweighs the benefits
The harm somewhat outweighs the benefits
The benefits are about equal to the harm
The benefits somewhat outweigh the harm
The benefits far outweigh the harm
χ2 (4, N = 4,595) = 150.52, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.18
186
174
134
38
41
32.5
30.4
23.4*
6.6*
7.2*
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
2,212
1,113
442
133
122
55.0*
27.7
11.0
3.3
3.0
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: GA1.
5.10.2 OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROMOTION OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING AMONGST
INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers agreed to being more likely to
gamble as a result of online gambling promotions (28.5%) compared to non‐interactive
gamblers (23.2%), while 11.0% of non‐interactive gamblers stated that online gambling
promotions decreased their likelihood of gambling, compared to 2.6% of interactive
gamblers (Table 5.38).
143
Table 5.38: Perceived impact on their gambling of viewing promotions for online gambling
amongst interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (N = 4,594)
Viewing promotions for online gambling typically:
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Has no impact on how much you gamble online
Increases the likelihood that you will gamble online
Decreases the likelihood that you will gamble online
χ2 (2, N = 4,593) = 41.73, p < 0.001, Φ = 0.10
393
163
15
68.8
28.5*
2.6
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
2,649
932
441
65.9
23.2
11.0*
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: GA2.
When asked where advertisements for online advertising should be allowed, a significantly
higher proportion of interactive gamblers responded yes to every option compared to non‐
interactive gamblers (Table 5.39)5.
Table 5.39: Opinions about where promotions for online gambling should be allowed amongst
interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (multiple response, N = 4,594)
Where promoted
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
In traditional media
(newspapers, radio,
television)
On billboards
300
52.4*
915
22.7
191
33.4*
645
16.0
At sporting events
235
41.1*
748
18.6
As logos on individual and
team uniforms/playing shirts
Online
189
33.1*
596
14.8
351
61.4*
1,220
30.3
198
24.6*
593
14.7
150
26.2
2,385
59.3*
During televised broadcasts
of sporting events
None of the above
Source:
Test statistic
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 227.04,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.22
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 101.32,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.15
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 150.55,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.18
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 117.93,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.16
2
χ (1, N = 4,595) = 214.42,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.22
2
χ (1, N = 4,595) = 138.82,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.17
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 221.51,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.22
GA3
5
This may suggest that either: a) more non‐interactive gamblers believe that gambling should not be
advertised at all, b) more non‐interactive gamblers believe that interactive gambling should not be
advertised at all or c) non‐interactive gamblers accept advertisements for interactive gambling, but not in
any of the locations surveyed.
144
5.10.3 PERCEIVED LEGALITY OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐
INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
When asked about which forms of gambling were legally available online in Australia, a
significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers thought that the following forms
were legal, compared to non‐interactive gamblers: instant scratch tickets,
lotteries/lotto/pools tickets, sports betting, horse or dog race betting, keno and poker. No
significant differences were observed between the groups for bingo, casino table games,
pokies/electronic gaming machines or games of skill. Almost half of the non‐interactive
gamblers admitted that they were not sure which of the forms surveyed were legally
allowed to be provided online in Australia, compared to 15.9% of the interactive gamblers
(Table 5.40).
Table 5.40: Knowledge about which forms of interactive gambling are legal in Australia amongst
interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (multiple response, N = 4,594)
Gambling form
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
Instant scratch tickets
135
23.6*
731
18.2
Lotteries, lotto, pools
336
58.7*
1,499
37.3
Sports betting
451
78.8*
2,038
50.7
Horse or dog race betting
445
77.9*
1,894
47.1
Bingo
119
20.8
729
18.1
Keno
169
29.5*
832
20.7
Poker
227
39.7*
1,201
29.9
Casino table games
142
24.8
924
23.0
127
22.2
865
21.5
81
14.2
611
15.2
91
15.9
1,832
45.5*
Pokies/electronic
machines
Games of skill
Unsure, do not know
gaming
Source: GA4.
145
Test statistic
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 9.64,
p = 0.002, Φ = 0.05
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 96.24,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.15
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 160.13,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.19
2
χ (1, N = 4,593) = 190.32,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.20
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 2.39,
p = 0.122
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 23.06,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.07
χ2 (1, N = 4,595) = 22.60,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.07
2
χ (1, N = 4,595) = 0.97,
p = 0.325
χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 0.14,
p = 0.705
2
χ (1, N = 4,595) = 0.41,
p = 0.521
2
χ (1, N = 4,594) = 180.78,
p < 0.001, Φ = 0.20
There was no difference between the groups in terms of their response to making all forms
of Internet gambling legal in Australia and the impact that they thought this change would
have on their gambling (Table 5.41).
Table 5.41: Opinions about the impact on their gambling of legalising all forms of interactive
gambling amongst interactive and non‐interactive gamblers (N = 4,594)
Impact
Interactive
gamblers
N
%
No impact on how much you gamble
Increase the amount you gamble
Decrease the amount you gamble
χ2 (2, N = 4,594) = 2.55, p = 0.280
514
48
10
89.9
8.4
1.7
Non‐interactive
gamblers
N
%
3,690
266
66
91.7
6.6
1.6
Note: Weighted N varies; see chi‐square reporting for N for each question. Some rounding of N may apply.
Asterisks (*) indicate significantly higher percentages for each row of data.
Source: GA5.
5.10.4 GAMBLING FALLACIES AMONGST INTERACTIVE AND NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Of the eight gambling fallacy items in the survey, the mean number of items answered
incorrectly for interactive gamblers was 0.81 (SD = 1.25), which was significantly lower than
for non‐interactive gamblers where the mean was 0.97 (SD = 1.36), t(773.16) = 2.72, p =
0.007. d = 0.20.
For each of the following items, there was a significantly higher proportion of non‐
interactive gamblers who answered incorrectly:
•
•
•
‘You have flipped a coin and it came up heads 5 times in a row. What are the odds
that heads will come up on the next flip?’ (15.0% non‐interactive answered the
question incorrectly compared to 10.3% interactive gamblers, χ2 (1, N = 4,594) =
8.89, p = 0.003, Φ = 0.04).
‘If 10 people’s names were put into a hat and one name drawn for a prize, how likely
is it that your name would be chosen?’ (8.6% non‐interactive answered the question
incorrectly compared to 5.1% interactive gamblers, χ2 (1, N = 4,594) = 8.34, p =
0.004, Φ = 0.04).
‘Which of the following set of lottery numbers would you say has the greatest
probability of being selected as the winning combination?’ (19.0% non‐interactive
answered the question incorrectly compared to 15.0% interactive gamblers, χ2 (1, N
= 4,595) = 5.26, p = 0.022, Φ = 0.03).
There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the other questions.
146
5.11 CHARACTERISTICS STATISTICALLY DIFFERENTIATING
GAMBLERS FROM NON‐INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
INTERACTIVE
The previous bivariate analyses do not control for other factors, so multivariate analyses
were conducted in order to determine which factors uniquely differentiate interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers. Furthermore, the weighting procedure required normalisation,
which reduced the weighted number of interactive gamblers involved in the following
analyses. Thus, the following regressions were run without data weights.
Logistic regression was used to model the relationships of measured and calculated
variables with interactive or non‐interactive gambling as the response variable.
Demographic variables and other variables of known importance for the analysis of
interactive gambling were entered into the equation simultaneously.
Categorical variables were coded as follows, with reference groups indicated:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gender (female as the reference group).
Marital status (recoded as ‘married’, ‘living with partner/de facto’, ‘widowed,
divorced or separated’ and ‘never married’, with married as the reference group).
Employment (recoded into ‘full time’, ‘part time’, ‘self employed’, ‘retired’, ‘full time
student’ and ‘other’, where other included unemployed, full‐time home duties, sick
or disability pension and other, with full time employment as the reference group).
Country of birth (coded as ‘not Australia’ and ‘Australia’ with the former as the
reference group).
Language at home (coded as ‘Not English only’ and ‘English only’ with the former as
the reference group).
Indigenous status (coded as ‘non‐Indigenous’ and ‘Indigenous’ with the former as
the reference group).
Alcohol use while gambling (coded as ‘Never’ and ‘At least sometimes’ with the
former as the reference group).
State of residence (NSW as the reference group).
Participation in sports betting, horse or dog racing betting, betting on games of skill,
playing poker for money and use of electronic gaming machines (all coded as ‘Not in
the last 12 months’ and ‘At least once in the last 12 months’, with the former as the
reference group).
PGSI category (with ‘non‐problem gambler’ as the reference group).
In addition to the predictors above, the following predictors were used: age (in years),
psychological distress (Kessler 6, treated as continuous) and number of types of gambling
147
activities in which the respondents participated in the last 12 months. The model was
initially tested for tolerance through a linear regression. Number of types of gambling
activities played displayed low tolerance with the rest of the model (0.228) and was
discarded as a predictor. Once number of games was removed, tolerance for all other
variables was >0.4 and considered acceptable.
Overall, the model correctly categorised 77.2% of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
and was significant, χ2 (30, N = 4,594) = 1,146.22, p < 0.001. The model was more successful
at predicting interactive gamblers (88.3% success) compared to non‐interactive gamblers.
The dependent variable was coded as 0 ‘non‐interactive gambler’ and 1 ‘interactive
gambler’, such that odds ratios (ORs) higher than 1 indicate that those with higher levels of
that independent variable are more likely to be interactive gamblers.
The predictors shown in bold in Table 5.42 were statistically significant when controlling for
all other predictors in the model. In terms of demographics, compared to non‐interactive
gamblers, interactive gamblers are more likely to be younger, male, self‐employed, married
(compared to never married), not a full‐time student (compared to full‐time employment),
and living in Victoria, Queensland or Western Australia (compared to NSW). In terms of
betting behaviours, interactive gamblers are significantly more likely to participate in sports
betting, horse and dog race betting and poker, while non‐interactive gamblers are
significantly more likely to use electronic gaming machines. In terms of PGSI group
membership, compared to non‐problem gamblers, a significantly higher proportion of
interactive gamblers are low risk or moderate risk gamblers compared to non‐interactive
gamblers. Finally, interactive gamblers are significantly less likely to consume alcohol while
gambling, or to experience psychological distress.
148
Table 5.42: Logistic regression of characteristics differentiating Australian interactive
gamblers from non‐interactive gamblers
Predictor
Demographics
Age (in years)
Gender (ref female)
Country of birth (ref not
Australia)
Language spoken at home
(ref not English only)
ATSI Status (ref non‐
Indigenous)
Marital status (ref married)
Living with partner/de facto
Widowed, divorced,
separated
Never married
Employment status (ref full‐
time employment)
Part time/casual
Self‐employed
Retired
Full‐time student
Other
State (ref New South Wales)
Australian Capital Territory
Victoria
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia
Tasmania
Northern Territory
Gambling behaviour
Sports betting (ref no)
Horse and dog race betting
(ref no)
Betting on games of skill (ref
no)
Poker (ref no)
Electronic gaming machines
(ref no)
Problem gambling
PGSI group (ref non‐problem
gambler)
Low‐risk gambler
Moderate risk gambler
Problem gambler
Alcohol use while gambling
(ref never)
Kessler 6 score
b
Std
Error b
Wald
p
Odds
ratio
95%
CI
Lower
95%
CI
Upper
‐0.015
0.659
0.062
0.004
0.090
0.096
15.650
53.214
0.414
<0.001
<0.001
0.520
0.985
1.934
1.064
0.978
1.620
0.881
0.993
2.308
1.284
0.114
0.126
0.825
0.364
1.121
0.876
1.434
0.006
0.224
0.001
0.977
1.006
0.648
1.562
‐0.028
0.040
0.115
0.125
0.057
0.101
0.812
0.751
0.973
1.040
0.776
0.815
1.220
1.329
‐0.257
0.110
5.439
0.020
0.773
0.623
0.960
‐0.093
0.467
0.220
‐0.550
‐0.025
0.122
0.154
0.157
0.165
0.132
0.583
9.154
1.957
11.150
0.035
0.445
0.002
0.162
0.001
0.852
0.911
1.595
1.246
0.577
0.976
0.718
1.179
0.916
0.417
0.753
1.157
2.159
1.694
0.797
1.264
0.099
0.470
0.385
0.106
0.365
0.012
‐0.414
0.274
0.123
0.132
0.203
0.108
0.286
0.309
0.130
14.671
8.505
0.275
11.498
0.002
1.795
0.719
<0.001
0.004
0.600
0.001
0.968
0.180
1.104
1.599
1.469
1.112
1.440
1.012
0.661
0.645
1.258
1.135
0.747
1.166
0.578
0.361
1.887
2.034
1.903
1.656
1.778
1.772
1.211
1.308
0.097
<0.001
3.701
3.062
4.472
0.733
0.095
183.59
4
59.981
<0.001
2.082
1.729
2.507
0.050
0.161
0.097
0.756
1.051
0.767
1.441
0.820
‐0.455
0.121
0.087
45.912
27.630
<0.001
<0.001
2.271
0.634
1.791
0.535
2.879
0.752
0.386
0.495
0.232
‐0.235
0.100
0.110
0.150
0.084
14.844
20.212
2.411
7.789
<0.001
<0.001
0.121
0.005
1.471
1.641
1.261
0.791
1.209
1.322
0.941
0.671
1.790
2.037
1.691
0.932
‐0.020
0.010
4.329
0.037
0.980
0.962
0.999
*Significant predictors are shown in bold.
149
5.12 CHARACTERISTICS STATISTICALLY PREDICTING LEVEL OF PROBLEM
GAMBLING SEVERITY AMONGST INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
A similar model to the one used above was run to determine which characteristics predict
higher levels of problem gambling amongst interactive gamblers. All 3,239 interactive
gamblers were included in this analysis.
The dependent variable in this case was problem gambling severity, treated as a continuous
variable. Due to the non‐normal distribution of PGSI scores, a negative binomial regression
(with a log link) was run instead of a linear regression. The ‘state of residence’ dummy
variables were excluded from this regression as some states had small counts and the PGSI
dummy variables were removed as they were directly related to the dependent variable.
Overall, the model was significant (likelihood ratio χ2 (20, N = 3,239) = 1,669.21, p < 0.001).
As shown in Table 5.43, the variables that significantly predicted greater problem gambling
severity amongst interactive gamblers were: being younger, being male, speaking a
language other than English at home, being widowed/divorced/separated or never married
(compared to married), betting on sports, horse or dog racing, games of skill, poker and
electronic gaming machines, and having a higher level of psychological distress.
Table 5.43: Negative binomial regression of characteristics predicting higher problem gambling in
Australian interactive gamblers
Predictor
b
Demographics
Age (in years)
‐0.005
Gender (ref female)
0.258
Country of birth (ref not Australia)
0.081
Language spoken at home (ref not
‐0.358
English only)
ATSI Status (ref non‐Indigenous)
0.207
Marital status (ref married)
Living with partner/de facto
0.085
Widowed, divorced, separated
0.156
Never married
0.148
Employment status (ref full‐time
employment)
Part time/casual ‐0.051
Self‐employed ‐0.096
Retired ‐0.064
Full‐time student ‐0.056
Other
0.000
Gambling behaviour
Sports betting (ref no)
0.329
Horse and dog race betting (ref no)
0.264
Betting on games of skill (ref no)
0.177
Poker (ref no)
0.154
Electronic gaming machines (ref no)
0.382
Alcohol use while gambling (ref never)
0.069
Kessler 6 score
0.127
*Significant predictors are shown in bold.
Std. Error
b
95% CI
Lower
95% CI
Upper
Wald
p
0.002
0.069
0.061
0.076
‐0.010
0.123
‐0.038
‐0.507
‐0.001
0.392
0.200
‐0.209
5.348
14.096
1.790
22.268
0.021
<0.001
0.181
<0.001
0.128
‐0.043
0.458
2.639
0.104
0.064
0.079
0.061
‐0.040
0.001
0.029
0.210
0.311
0.267
1.790
3.880
5.911
0.181
0.049
0.015
0.075
0.078
0.106
0.091
0.078
‐0.197
‐0.249
‐0.273
‐0.234
‐0.153
0.095
0.056
0.144
0.122
0.153
0.467
1.526
0.366
0.384
0.000
0.494
0.217
0.545
0.535
0.999
0.065
0.063
0.076
0.052
0.046
0.049
0.005
0.202
0.140
0.027
0.053
0.293
‐0.027
0.118
0.455
0.389
0.326
0.255
0.471
0.165
0.136
25.803
17.436
5.375
8.881
70.135
1.975
702.501
<0.001
<0.001
0.020
0.003
<0.001
0.160
<0.001
150
5.13 CHARACTERISTICS STATISTICALLY DIFFERENTIATING INTERACTIVE
MODERATE RISK AND PROBLEM GAMBLERS FROM NON‐INTERACTIVE
MODERATE RISK AND PROBLEM GAMBLERS
The full set of predictors seen in Table 5.43 (except for PGSI groups) was included as
predictors in this model. A total of 1,668 moderate risk and problem gamblers were
included in the analysis. A PGSI cut‐off of 3+ was used for consistency with the National
Telephone Survey.
Overall, the model correctly categorised 82.0% of respondents involved χ2 (27, N = 1,668) =
424.52, p < 0.001. The model was more successful at predicting interactive moderate risk
and problem gamblers (successful for 93.7% of cases) than non‐interactive moderate risk
and problem gamblers (successful for 43.1% of cases).
As shown in Table 5.44, interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers were more likely to
be younger, male, married (compared to single), living in Victoria or Queensland (compared
to NSW) and to bet on sports, horse or dog racing or poker compared to moderate risk or
problem non‐interactive gamblers. In contrast, non‐interactive moderate risk or problem
gamblers were significantly more likely to bet on electronic gaming machines, drink alcohol
while gambling and have higher levels of psychological distress compared to interactive
moderate risk and problem gamblers.
151
Table 5.44: Logistic regression of characteristics differentiating at‐risk and problem interactive
gamblers from at‐risk and problem non‐interactive gamblers
Predictor
b
Demographics
Age (in years)
‐0.023
Gender (ref female)
0.549
Country of birth (ref not Australia)
0.278
Language spoken at home (ref not
English only)
0.112
ATSI Status (ref non‐Indigenous)
0.171
Marital status (ref married)
Living with partner/de facto ‐0.363
Widowed, divorced, separated ‐0.035
Never married ‐0.521
Employment status (ref full‐time
employment)
Part time/casual ‐0.341
Self‐employed
0.403
Retired
0.507
Full‐time student
0.122
Other ‐0.185
State (ref New South Wales)
Australian Capital Territory
0.238
Victoria
0.550
Queensland
0.448
South Australia
0.497
Western Australia
0.245
Tasmania
0.089
Northern Territory ‐0.813
Gambling behaviour
Sports betting (ref no)
1.093
Horse and dog race betting (ref no)
1.095
Betting on games of skill (ref no)
0.343
Poker (ref no)
0.836
Electronic gaming machines (ref no)
‐0.795
Alcohol use while gambling (ref
never)
‐0.385
Kessler 6 score
‐0.026
*Significant predictors are shown in bold.
Std Error
b
Wald
p
Odds
ratio
95% CI
Lower
95% CI
Upper
0.007
0.180
0.182
11.198
9.261
2.325
0.001
0.002
0.127
0.977
1.731
1.320
0.964
1.216
0.924
0.991
2.466
1.887
0.206
0.372
0.298
0.213
0.585
0.645
1.119
1.187
0.748
0.573
1.674
2.459
0.211
0.236
0.193
2.976
0.022
7.262
0.085
0.882
0.007
0.695
0.966
0.594
0.460
0.609
0.407
1.051
1.532
0.868
0.212
0.292
0.341
0.306
0.213
2.595
1.896
2.204
0.160
0.753
0.107
0.168
0.138
0.689
0.386
0.711
1.496
1.660
1.130
0.831
0.470
0.843
0.850
0.621
0.547
1.077
2.653
3.241
2.058
1.262
0.503
0.204
0.210
0.362
0.210
0.488
0.672
0.223
7.257
4.557
1.887
1.372
0.033
1.465
0.637
0.007
0.033
0.170
0.241
0.856
0.226
1.268
1.734
1.565
1.644
1.278
1.093
0.443
0.473
1.162
1.037
0.809
0.848
0.420
0.119
3.397
2.587
2.360
3.340
1.927
2.844
1.655
0.185
0.190
0.238
0.183
0.174
34.996
33.136
2.077
20.819
20.943
<0.001
<0.001
0.150
<0.001
<0.001
2.983
2.988
1.409
2.308
0.452
2.077
2.058
0.884
1.611
0.321
4.284
4.337
2.245
3.306
0.635
0.161
0.012
5.711
4.875
0.017
0.027
0.681
0.975
0.496
0.953
0.933
0.997
5.14 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has analysed the results of the National Online Survey of 4,594 gamblers.
Appropriate weighting against the National Telephone Survey was conducted to make the
sample as representative as possible of the Australian adult population of gamblers.
152
The gambling habits of participants in the online survey, even after weighting, were slightly
different from the National Telephone Survey. The most popular activities were lottery
tickets (77%), EGMs (56%), and instant scratch tickets (49%), with race wagering the fourth,
rather than third most popular form of gambling and EGM play reported by a higher
proportion of participants. The prevalence rates of problem gambling were the same as
reported in the telephone survey.
When controlling for other variables, the predictors of being an interactive gambler were
being male, younger, self‐employed or employed full time, married, betting on sports, races
and poker, and being a low or moderate risk gambler. Interactive gamblers were more likely
to have higher household incomes than average, but were not in the highest (or lowest)
income categories, were more likely to be born in Australia and speak only English at home,
and live as a couple with children. A significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers
bet on sports betting, horse or dog race betting, casino table games, keno, poker and games
of skill compared to non‐interactive gamblers.
In contrast, non‐interactive gamblers were more likely to gamble on EGMs, consume alcohol
while gambling and experience psychological distress. Non‐interactive gamblers were also
more likely to be female, divorced or separated, employed part‐time or casually, been born
outside of Australia and speak a language other than English at home and live as a couple
with no children or a one parent family. Non‐interactive gamblers were significantly more
likely to gamble on EGMs and bingo.
Interactive gamblers had similar experiences with interactive gambling as participants in the
telephone survey. The majority of interactive gamblers preferred this mode (55%) or liked
land‐based gambling equally (31%) and the vast majority gambled from home (92%) during
the afternoon or evening. Payment was most commonly through credit (36%) or debit (25%)
cards or bank transfers (14%), although e‐wallets accounted for 19% of usual payment
methods for interactive gambling. Interactive gamblers were most likely to consider the
price (including bonuses), reputation and products available when selecting a site, and
about two‐thirds preferred domestic sites (65%), although one‐third (34%) were not
concerned where a site was regulated. The key advantage of interactive gambling was the
convenience of this mode, followed by the better price and comfort of gambling from home.
However, interactive gamblers were concerned that it was easier to spend money online,
that this mode was too convenient and that their account information may not be safe.
A minority of interactive gamblers reported that using electronic money increased their
expenditure (12%), disrupted their sleep (13%) and eating (5%). A significantly higher
proportion of interactive gamblers were classified as low risk or moderate risk gamblers
according to the PGSI, whereas a significantly higher proportion of non‐interactive gamblers
were classified as non‐problem gamblers. Interactive gamblers had significantly higher PGSI
scores on average, but were not more likely to be classified as problem gamblers.
Interactive gamblers were more likely to report horse or dog race betting (31%) or sports
betting (16%) as the cause of their problems, while non‐interactive gamblers were more
153
likely to nominate EGMs (50%) or instant scratch tickets (5%). However, 19% of interactive
gamblers attributed their problems to EGMs and 33% attributed problems to land‐based
modes of gambling, although the majority reported their problems were related to
interactive modes (66%). Just over half (53%) of moderate risk and problem interactive
gamblers reported that they had problems before they gambled online, and of these, only
30% agreed that online gambling had exacerbated their problems. Of those who did not
have gambling problems before they gambled online, 46.6% agreed or strongly agreed that
interactive gambling had contributed to their gambling problems. The variables that
significantly predicted greater problem gambling severity amongst interactive gamblers
were: being younger, being male, speaking a language other than English at home, being
widowed/divorced/separated or never married (compared to married), betting on sports,
horse or dog racing, games of skill, poker and electronic gaming machines, and having a
higher level of psychological distress.
No differences were found between interactive and non‐interactive gamblers in terms of
the proportion who had ever thought that they may need help for their gambling.
Nonetheless, interactive moderate risk or problem gamblers were significantly more likely
to have sought help compared to non‐interactive moderate risk or problem gamblers,
although non‐interactive gamblers were more likely to use self‐help strategies. Non‐
interactive gamblers had significantly higher scores on a measure of psychological distress,
although a significantly higher proportion of interactive gamblers (11.2%) reported that this
psychological distress was due to gambling compared to 3.3% of non‐interactive gamblers.
Comparison of gambling‐related problems showed that interactive gamblers were more
likely to report problems related to excessive time spent gambling, such as arguments,
neglecting important activities, reduced performance at work, and trust issues. Non‐
interactive gamblers were more likely to report more serious problems including
relationship break‐ups, losing contact with children, changing or losing jobs, being declared
bankrupt, being evicted or losing a house, and the loss of savings.
Similarly to the results from the telephone survey, interactive gamblers were more likely to
consider gambling to have some benefits. Interactive gamblers were more likely to gamble
as a result of online promotions, but were also more liberal in their views of when and
where online gambling operators should be allowed to advertise.
The next chapter, Chapter Six, presents the results from the interviews with 50 interactive
gamblers.
154
CHAPTER SIX
INTERVIEWS WITH INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS RECRUITED FROM
THE GENERAL POPULATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the results from interviews with 50 interactive gamblers. This sample
was recruited from respondents to the National Telephone Survey and the National Online
Survey who had gambled online at least once during the previous 12 months. Purposeful
sampling generated a sample of interviewees with a diverse range of preferred interactive
gambling activities and PGSI scores. None of the sample had received treatment for a
gambling problem. Chapter Three provides a detailed explanation of the methodology used
for this stage of the study. The results are presented under the following broad categories:
•
•
Transition from land‐based gambling to interactive gambling;
•
Media preferences for interactive gambling;
•
Advertisements and promotions;
•
Responsible gambling measures;
•
Motivations for interactive gambling;
•
Features of online gambling that contribute to problem gambling;
•
Help‐seeking behaviour of interactive gamblers; and
Overall opinions of interactive gambling.
Participant quotations are tagged with the participant ID number, preferred type of
interactive gambling (at recruitment), PGSI High (score of 3+) or PSGI Low (score of 0‐2)
category (at recruitment), gender and age. Please note that preferred type of interactive
gambling refers to the interactive gambling activity that the participant had engaged in most
in the 12 months prior to recruitment. The tag ‘multiple’ means that participants equally
engaged in several types of interactive gambling activities. Operator names, where
mentioned, have been de‐identified.
6.2 TRANSITION FROM LAND‐BASED GAMBLING TO INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
To understand the transition from land‐based gambling to interactive gambling, participants
were asked when they first started gambling and why, the types of gambling activities they
had engaged in since commencing gambling, their first and subsequent interactive gambling
activities, and whether, how and why their gambling had changed over time.
155
6.2.1 HISTORY OF GAMBLING
Results are presented below in terms of the interviewees’ early gambling experiences and
commencement of interactive gambling, and changes in gambling participation, including
the transition for some to becoming a ‘professional gambler’.
First gambling activities
The gambling activity most interviewees first participated in was on‐course wagering on the
races. This activity was typically done with family members, while the individual was
underage. A number of these respondents reported that they came from families with high
exposure to racing. They had family members working at racetracks, parents employed as
bookmakers, or family members who owned race horses or greyhounds. As such, exposure
to racing and gambling was seen as inevitable. For example, one respondent stated:
Probably my first gambling experience was with my grandfather who was a bookmaker.
I assisted my family. Some of my first memories are being at a racetrack as a kid. That
would be my first experience with gambling.
(#25 Multiple PGSI Low Male 41 yrs)
The second most popular first gambling activity was off‐course wagering at a land‐based
agency and this group of participants tended to gamble with friends. These individuals
tended to be of legal gambling age when they first gambled.
Experiences of underage gambling
Twenty respondents discussed being introduced to gambling whilst underage. From this
group of 20, four interviewees reported that their first gambling experiences were placing
bets on the Melbourne Cup, either at school or with family members. For example, one
respondent stated:
That was probably where it all started I think and at school I used to bet on the
Melbourne Cup and things like that, that was the lead into it.
(#16 Poker PGSI High Male 40 yrs)
For a number of participants, gambling at home was a normal family activity and, as such,
their first gambling exposure and experiences involved family members. These individuals
first gambled at a relatively young age, when compared with other participants in this
sample. Below are examples where exposure to gambling within the family preceded
participation in gambling:
When I was a young kid; races on a Saturday. I would have been about 10 or 11. It was a
family event with my dad and my brother. Next I would have played poker when I was
about 12 or so. That was online poker. I saw it on the TV. When it first came on like the
Texas Hold’em World Poker Tour. Me and my brother started playing. Then we wanted
156
to play more, so we played online. The only problem was that we couldn't cash out any
winnings as we were underage.
(#51 Multiple PGSI High Male 18 yrs)
I started gambling when I was quite young. My mother and my auntie gambled playing
cards and then when I turned 18 I started going to the club and started gambling
playing poker machines
(#22 Poker PGSI Low Female 38 yrs)
It all started off, my dad had a couple of race horses and I had a couple of greyhounds
and that is sort of where it started. I was 16 or 17 years old at that time when I was
introduced to it, the gambling
(#26 Multiple PGSI High Male age not provided)
First experiences of interactive gambling
Amongst the 50 interviewees, only three individuals reported that their first experience of
gambling was with interactive gambling. All three individuals were male and were aged 24,
33 and 46 years. Only one had a PGSI score of High (PGSI 3+). Online poker was the first
interactive gambling activity that two interviewees participated in, while sports betting was
the first interactive activity for the third interviewee. These three respondents reported the
following first experiences of interactive gambling:
Probably about 16 years old when I started doing online poker in the UK. I was about 16
years old. Started with online poker. I used my mom's credit card. I think I put about 50
pounds over and just started playing poker online a bit.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24 yrs)
My first experience with gambling was in May of last year, Internet gambling. I was
watching the Fox channel and the poker tournaments and stuff on the Fox channel. I
thought I'd give it a go; I researched a couple of poker sites as well.
(#42 Poker PGSI Low Male 46 yrs)
My first experience of gambling was Internet gambling. I heard it advertised on a radio
station as it came on about a sports bet. It was a no lose situation that was sure to
break even. So I started to gamble on that then.
(#53 Multiple PGSI High Male 33 yrs)
Forty‐seven interviewees discussed how they first found out about the availability of
interactive gambling. Four participants found out through word of mouth or a
recommendation from a friend, while seven individuals found out through advertisements
on television or radio. For example, these individuals described:
I think it was probably just from seeing advertisements on TV when I watch sports.
That's how I got the idea of gambling on sports.
(#20 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 26 yrs)
157
Mainly because it was advertised on the TV. Like (wagering operator).com.au and all
this online advertising, all these poker games just pop up on your screen things like that.
(#45 Lottery PGSI High Male 39 yrs)
However, the most commonly reported way of discovering interactive gambling was
through advertising by the land based gambling operator that would normally be used. For
example, when visiting a wagering outlet to place a bet or a newsagency to purchase a
lottery ticket, respondents reported they would see an advertisement for the availability of
interactive gambling services, or they saw these advertisements online on the gambling
operators’ websites, as reflected in the following statements:
Ever since I started, I've had a (wagering operator) account and then they provided the
online stuff and once you're online, you see other advertising just through their racing
sites.
(#19 Race Betting PGSI High Male 52 yrs)
I think it was because I had a phone account with those bookmakers and whenever they
made that progression across is when I chose to use that service instead of the phone
betting.
(#25 Multiple PGSI Low Male 41 yrs)
I looked at lotto results at (lottery operator).com; that I used to check my results, and
then I realised that you could actually get lottery online that way.
(#46 Lottery PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
6.2.2 PARTICIPATION IN INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Increasing interactive gambling over time
Twenty of the 50 interviewees reported increasing their interactive gambling over time. Of
these, 19 were male and 12 were rated as PGSI High. The only female participant in this
group was a Low PGSI poker player. The reasons reported for increasing participation in
interactive gambling were varied. Several individuals stated that their increased interactive
gambling resulted from enhanced availability of both viewing and betting on a wider range
of sports. For example, three respondents stated the following:
When that poker craze started I spent a fair bit of time at first, in the first year, playing
online poker at all different times ... I spent a lot of time, maybe all night sometimes
playing maybe four or five times a week. That was casino poker, online poker. Probably
2004 or 2005 I started betting on sports on online betting sites, many different ones. I
think it started off pretty small and just when a big football game was on like State of
Origin or AFL grand final or something. Then it gradually got to tennis matches, soccer
games and even handball. As long as I could see it being played, if I could watch it on the
Internet, I would bet on it.
(#16 Poker PGSI High Male 40 yrs)
158
I think it started out as mainly weekends, betting on footy and stuff like that. Then I
actually moved on to probably during the week as well, because I started watching
basketball all over America.
(#29 Multiple PGSI High Male 20 yrs)
I probably hop on the mobile sporting website maybe three or four times a week. It has
increased … I don’t really bet on horses anymore. I'm more into sports betting in AFL and
NRL, but I find myself doing a lot of things that I never used to do, like studying games
and watching games and recording things ...
(#6 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 29 yrs)
One participant stated that his increased participation in interactive gambling was a result
of his increased earning capacity:
Now, I'm earning really good money, and mostly my entire wage goes to gambling each
week. Once I pay for rent, food, petrol, whatever is left, I go to the casino or place bets
online and hope for the best.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24 yrs)
Four interviewees attributed their increased participation to improved technology and ease
of Internet gambling:
Well I would do it more now than I did when I first started, because I've got the Internet
at home, I've got Internet now where I work. I've got a mobile phone with the Internet,
so I use the betting application as well, yes definitely I would use it much more than I did
when I first started.
(#34 Multiple PGSI High Male 34 yrs)
When I used to have to go into the shop to do it, I would do my standard same games all
the time. Now that it’s online if there’s this jackpot play or something like that I might
just go online and quickly buy an extra ticket.
(#4 Lottery PGSI Low Male 51 yrs)
I used to get a ticket every Saturday, fairly regularly say nine out of 10 times. Now it
would have increased 100% I think. This week I've got that big Powerball for those …
jackpot draws and Saturday it's just a general lottery draw. I've got in this week as an
example, two extra tickets than I would normally have.
(#47 Lottery PGSI Low Male 38 yrs)
Since I started I probably spend more time doing it now, not necessarily spending more
money but definitely more time doing it. When I first started gambling I would have
been less savvy and it would have been more speculative whereas now I take it more
seriously and do a lot of research.
(#5 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 45 yrs)
159
Decreasing interactive gambling over time
Twelve interviewees discussed decreasing their interactive gambling over time. Within this
group, only one was female and the majority (8) were classified as PGSI High. Reasons for
decreasing participation varied, as highlighted by the quotes below:
I'm married now and I've got a kid so I've got responsibilities. I still have a bet now and
then, but within my means. Not like I used to, which was I could lose everything and I
didn’t have any responsibilities; it didn’t really worry me.
(#16 Poker PGSI High Male 40 yrs)
I would probably say this year I have been spending a bit less because I have been
studying more and haven't had time to work, so I don't really have any money or as
much money recently.
(#29 Multiple PGSI High Male 20 yrs)
One participant discussed how a serious illness (stroke) had impacted upon her life and her
wish to no longer gamble at previous levels:
To be honest, I did not want to die from a stroke and my children have no memory of
doing anything with their mum because I gambled all of our money.
(#22 Poker PGSI Low Female 38 yrs)
Another interviewee discussed the experience of having a ‘big loss’ and how this had been
the catalyst to decreasing his interactive gambling:
It used to be daily. About 10 bets a day. But now I do it once a month. I guess when I had
that big loss I realised that you can’t win. You never win on something that’s... the
outcome is pretty much random. No matter how much you’ve lost. That big loss for me
was a rude awakening. I decided not to gamble as much after that.
(#53 Multiple PGSI High Male 33 yrs)
Amongst the 12 individuals who had decreased their interactive gambling, three had
established exclusions or limitations to help control their interactive gambling. Two had
excluded themselves from interactive gambling completely. These two respondents stated:
I cannot gamble online now because I've black banned myself on most of the major
Internet sites that I could find.
(#14 Race Betting PGSI High Male 58 yrs)
I always gambled on the (wagering operator) website because I had an account with
them, but I have cancelled it already. Because I think it's not good for me, because I
think it affects my financial situation.
(#10 Sports Betting PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
160
The other individual had decided to only exclude himself from the interactive gambling
activity (sports betting) that was causing problems:
I just realised it’s not just a game, money is involved, and then I just basically stopped it.
What I have now is just buying lottery tickets online. That’s all.
(#45 Lottery PGSI High Male 39 yrs)
Becoming a ‘professional gambler’
Twelve participants reported that they gambled differently to ‘normal’ gamblers. They
referred to themselves as ‘professional gamblers’ and explained that they conducted
research and compiled spread sheets that provided an advantage over other gamblers and
allowed them to earn a living from Internet gambling. All 12 respondents were male. Eight
were classified as PGSI Low. This group was aged between 26 and 60 years, with most (7)
aged over 40 years. The following quotes illustrate how these professional gamblers
identified their gambling behaviour as being distinct from that of ‘regular gamblers’:
I call myself a professional gambler; you’ve got to understand the margins, the
percentages involved. You’ve got to know the odds you're taking. You’ve got to know …
you’ve got to do a lot of research as well, a lot of history. I've got basically an Excel file
that keeps all of the tracks … all of the AFL games, cricket games, basketball games. It's
a pretty detailed analysis.
(#7 Sports Betting PGSI High Male 28 yrs)
Yes, I record it. I do charts and stuff on the amount of money that I'm investing each
week and pull out obviously the profits and then work out my margin on what I’ve made
or what I’ve lost … I think there's gambling and then there's maybe a bit of a
professional gambling sort of thing where you look into it a bit more and record things
and do maths. That’s the sort of stuff I do.
(#6 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 29 yrs)
It has allowed me to quit my job in a factory and for the last four years make a
reasonable income, and that’s solely Internet. I would have never been able to do what I
do now pre‐Internet. It’s just that this is my job and my income. I bet probably in the
region of four to five million dollars a year and I look at 1% income on that, 1%‐2%
income on that. I probably look at gambling a lot differently from other people. The
other thing is I am probably in my position taking advantage of people that are having a
gambling problem, because if I make money somebody else has to be losing.
(#11 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 52 yrs)
One professional gambler differed from the others in how he gambled. This respondent
employed a professional punting service to provide advice on how to bet. He reported that
he did not gamble for enjoyment or excitement and that he did not watch the races. He
likened gambling to investing on the stock market:
161
Actually I use two services to provide me tips and I just follow those. A professional
punting service. They, for a fee, will send you the three bets that they have that day and
they tell you how much the investment is and that is basically all I do. I don't have
enough time to follow the board. I use that service because it's impossible for me,
because the percentages, the returns and their losses, that's why I follow that. I only bet
to make money. I don't watch races, I don't get that thrill out of it so I don't want to go
to a track and pick a horse. To me it's just numbers. It's like the stock market. I don't
watch it. I just see whether I'm getting a return at the end of the month or the end of
the six months and follow it along those lines.
(#25 Multiple PGSI Low Male 41 yrs)
The participants identifying as professional gamblers detailed research activities they
undertook to inform their gambling which they devote a significant amount of time to, often
on a daily basis. The following quotations highlight the variety of these research activities:
I do spend a lot of time reading about it every day. Like I read all of the news articles on
horses and greyhounds and I look at results and I look at rating and everything like that.
(#15 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 32 yrs)
It's like doing a puzzle. Some people do crosswords or sudokus or something like that, I
absolutely love downloading the forms, my spread sheets, running my model and seeing
the outcome. Trying to pick a winner and seeing the outcome. Sometimes you lose, but
it would be like playing a little game and you get off when you win. You feel really good,
like you've been financially rewarded for being smart and that's the good feeling
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
I realised a while back that the mathematics of what the average punter does, because I
use multiple bets. I don't bet on win and place bets. I bet on what they call exotic
betting, which used to be called trifecta, but now I work on the first four. In other words,
what I mean with a trifecta, you’ve got to pick the horses in order, first, second and third
past the line. Now, there are a lot of combinations that can occur in a field of ten horses
or whatever. If you're trying to cover all those options, there’s many, many, many
options that are mathematically possible. For the average punter to be able to cover
those, he has to do what we call a box bet, whereby he's essentially forced to bet the
same amount or the same percentage on each combination, which is ridiculous because
just the chance of each combination happening are not the same, but he does it.
Whereas with the spread sheet design, you can do those multi bets in a more logical
fashion that matches the real odds of those formations occurring and structure that
accordingly, so that you wage your bet more mathematically logically than they do and
essentially you gain the advantage.
(#18 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 60 yrs)
162
6.3 MEDIA PREFERENCES FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
The 50 participants were asked about their media preferences (devices used) to access
interactive gambling, what influences this choice, and whether the device used varies for
different types of interactive gambling. Results are discussed below.
6.3.1 PREFERRED DEVICES FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
The interviewees were asked about their preferred devices for accessing interactive
gambling: smartphone, tablet, computer, laptop or digital TV. The most popular devices
used were a computer (31 participants), followed by a smartphone (28 participants) and a
laptop computer (22 participants). Seven interviewees used a tablet while only one
individual accessed interactive gambling via digital TV. (Several participants used multiple
devices so these numbers do not total 50).
Smartphone only
Amongst the 28 respondents who reported using their smartphone to gamble online, three
reported that this was the only device they used. Of the three smartphone‐only users, two
were male and all three were classified as Low PGSI and were relatively young (24‐32 years).
As highlighted in the quotes below, all three respondents reported that accessing interactive
gambling via their smartphone was convenient:
I use my iPhone … convenience. Literally, I can be at home on the toilet, at work in the
office and within ten seconds, I can be on the website locked in looking at the latest
bets, placing the bets. It's just a quick convenience really.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24 yrs)
Just convenience. Usually if we're betting we'll do it on the big events, which is when the
(wagering operator) is really busy. I use a phone, always the phone. It’s easy to use.
(#39 Casino PGSI Low Female 28 yrs)
Computer only
Amongst the 31 respondents who reported using their computer to gamble online, 12 used
only this device. Amongst these computer‐only users, one respondent was female. Also
within this group, equal numbers were classified as PGSI High and PGSI Low. Eight of the 12
respondents were aged over 50 years. Reasons for gambling online using a computer
related to software, screen size, security, and speed, for example:
I can't just bet on a phone or a laptop on the road. I need to have the software available
otherwise I won't touch it.
(#28 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 52 yrs)
Essentially I don't like doing it on the phone, because the screen's too small and I don't
know how good the security is either, but supposedly it's equal to doing it on the
computer, but normally I just do it from a desktop PC. That's what I normally use.
(#19 Race Betting PGSI High Male 52 yrs)
163
I use a computer only PC and I do it for speed.
(#11 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 52 yrs)
Laptop only
Amongst the 22 respondents who reported using their laptop to gamble online, four
reported that this was the only device they used. All four respondents were male, with two
being PGSI High and two being PGSI Low. The four respondents were aged between 38 and
58 years. Only one provided any justification as to why they only used a laptop to gamble
online:
I only use the laptop for Internet gambling. Mainly for security reasons.
(#47 Lottery PGSI Low Male 38 yrs)
Digital TV
Only one respondent reported using a digital television to gamble online. This respondent
reported that they used this medium occasionally and predominately used a computer:
Computer and occasionally digital TV. I use my computer at home and I don’t have
access at work.
(#21 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 58 yrs)
Number of devices used to gamble online
Respondents varied in the number of devices they used to access interactive gambling.
Nineteen respondents used just one device. Of these, 12 used a computer, four used a
laptop and three used a smartphone (as discussed above). Twenty‐three respondents used
two devices to access interactive gambling. The most popular combination was a
smartphone and computer, which was used by 11 participants, followed by smartphone and
laptop (6), computer and laptop (5) and computer and digital television (1). Eight
respondents used three devices to gamble online. Three used a smartphone, computer and
laptop, three used a smartphone, laptop and tablet, and two used a smartphone, computer
and tablet.
6.3.2 FACTORS THAT DETERMINE CHOICE OF DEVICE
Use of different devices was determined by several factors, including the type of gambling
activity being undertaken, technology and applications, location and convenience, ease of
use, and security concerns.
164
Gambling activity determines device
A number of participants reported that they used different devices for accessing different
gambling activities. For example, the device used for gambling on a particular activity which
required detailed research and analysis (e.g., horse racing) would be different to the device
chosen for gambling on other activities. The following quotation illustrates how one
participant decides which medium to use when gambling online:
It really depends. If I'm gambling on horses, if I use my desktop computer I get more
access to the past history of a horse on the website, versus the mobile version. The
mobile version is very basic. But if it’s something like NBA or NRL or AFL, those ones I
know these things already, I know the platforms. Whereas horses, you’ll see a horse one
day, but you won’t see them again for three months. Also, I would use the phone outside
of my home. I use the phone the most frequently.
(#53 Multiple PGSI High Male 33 yrs)
Technology and applications determines device
For other participants, the development of new technologies and applications resulted in a
transition from gambling online through a computer to gambling using newer technologies.
The following quotations illustrate how changing technologies have influenced the medium
for accessing interactive gambling:
For racing I would have been using my desktop computer, for most of that period of
betting it would have just been a desktop computer. In the last two years it's probably
shifted more towards my smartphone and using apps for putting bets on.
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
Yes, four years on the computer, then obviously when all the iPhones came out, that’s
when I turned to that.
(#6 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 29 yrs)
No, I did use my laptop mainly, but I've had an iPad for about a month now and I tend to
use it because it's just convenient.
(#26 Multiple PGSI High Male (Age not provided)
Location and convenience determines device
Some respondents reported that location and convenience were determining factors when
choosing the device to gamble online. For example, a mobile device such as a smartphone
would often be used when outside of the home or workplace when access to a computer or
laptop was not available. The following quotes illustrate how location and convenience can
determine the device chosen:
I use my phone and computer. Depending upon where I am. If I'm at home and the
computer’s on, I'll use that. If I want to be lazy and not get up from the couch then I'll
165
pick up my phone. Sometimes when I'm at work just checking things, I'll use my phone.
I'll use the computers at work too. It's just what's more convenient
(#48 Multiple PGSI Low Male 37 yrs)
Convenience influences me most. If I am at home I will use my computer. It takes me
about 25 minutes when I travel on the bus to and from work and I’ll use this time to
check through the odds whilst I am commuting. I use my iPhone for this and I’ll also use
my iPhone to place a bet. Also, if I am sitting at home watching sport I’ll use my iPhone
as well as it might be easier than the laptop from a convenience point of view, say if I
already have my phone with me.
(#5 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 45 yrs)
Ease of use determines device
Some respondents reported that the ease of use of the device was the determining factor
when gambling online. For the following participants, a device with a larger screen, greater
capacity for downloads and quicker connections were all important factors:
I use my laptop and phone but I prefer my laptop as it’s just easier and quicker and it
has a bigger screen. I'd probably only use my phone about 20% and that’s really if I'm
out somewhere.
(#51 Multiple PGSI High Male 18 yrs)
I've never used the phone for the simple reason my eyesight isn't good enough to
download and read all the parts like on my mobile phone. I've only ever been on the
laptop.
(#14 Race Betting PGSI High Male 58 yrs)
The capacity to run excel basically is an integral determinator for me. Just a normal
home computer, not a laptop..
(#18 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 60 yrs)
I have a set up at home with software that I use and a couple of different screens and
computers. I can't just bet on a phone or a laptop on the road. I need to have the
software available otherwise I won't touch it.
(#28 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 58 yrs)
Security concerns determine device
Two respondents highlighted security concerns as factors when choosing the device to
gamble online. As highlighted in the following two quotes, both respondents used a
computer or a laptop for interactive gambling as they considered these devices to be safer
and more secure, when compared with mobile technologies such as smartphones:
Essentially I don't like doing it on the phone, because the screen's too small and I don't
know how good the security is either, but supposedly it's equal to doing it on the
computer, but normally I just do it from a desktop PC. That's what I normally use.
(#19 Race Betting PGSI High Male 52 yrs)
I only use the laptop for Internet gambling. Mainly for security reasons.
(#47 Lottery PGSI Low Male 38 yrs)
166
6.4 MOTIVATIONS FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
This section presents findings on why gamblers choose to gamble online. Respondents
reported a diverse range of reasons as to what motivated them to gamble online rather
than, or as well as, at a land‐based gambling venue.
6.4.1 CONVENIENCE AND EASE OF ACCESS
Most respondents (28 respondents) reported that convenience and ease of access were the
biggest factors in deciding to gamble online. This group was aged between 18 and 72 years,
had slightly more respondents classified as PGSI High (15) than PGSI Low (13) and included
two women. For these respondents, convenience related to location (gambling from home
or work) and reduced effort to gamble (as one respondent reported, he could gamble in his
pyjamas), as noted in the following participant quotes:
Just ease of access. It’s 24/7; it’s pretty much in the palm of your hand now with the
mobile phone and all that. That’s probably the most, I'd say.
(#16 Poker PGSI High Male 40 yrs)
…you can be sitting in class at uni and put on a bet on or at work or whatever or at
home. At work or at uni previously I wouldn't be able to.
(#29 Multiple PGSI High Male 20 yrs)
Well, online basically it’s convenient, in your own house, the privacy that makes it very
easy. All you need is a device to connect to the Internet that's all. For you to go to a
venue you have to travel to the place which is less convenient.
(#45 Lottery PGSI High Male 39 yrs)
Convenience of being in your own home is a huge thing. Now I don't have to change out
of my pyjamas to make a bet, or have to get to a shop or walk to a (wagering operator
agency). There's effort to do that. It's more comfortable when you're at home
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
I use Internet gambling mainly because I have two small children and I can't take them
with me to gamble at a venue. It is just easier to do it online for me. More convenient.
(#36 Lottery PGSI Low Female 29 yrs)
Two respondents reported that the reason they gambled online was their geographical
location in a rural or semi‐rural location without access to gambling amenities. Both
reported that interactive gambling enabled them to gamble without the inconvenience of
having to travel to a club or newsagency to place a bet or purchase a lottery ticket. The
following two quotes highlight how gambling online is preferable for these two
respondents:
167
Living in Tasmania we don't have the outlets so it’s the convenience of being able to do
it at home.
(#13 Sports Betting PGSI High Male 42 yrs)
It’s because I have it at home and it saves me going out. We live in a semi‐rural area.
We’re not actually close to anything. I just find the convenience of it. … Yes and I’m not
terribly young. Whereas, before I’d have to get into the car and drive, of course some
distance to be able to put money into the account or take money out.
(#3 Lottery PGSI Low Female 72 Yrs
6.4.2 SAVES TIME/SPEED
Fourteen respondents reported that their decision to gamble online rather than at land‐
based venues was because interactive gambling saves time and is a speedier option, which
also relates to convenience. This group contained one female, was aged between 18 and 72
years and had more respondents classified as PGSI High (9).These respondents explained
how gambling online requires less time, guarantees that they will not be disadvantaged by
other gamblers when placing bets and has a faster pace, as illustrated in the following
quotes:
Definitely the convenience of it, the sort of fast pace of it as well. If I see a market I like I
can jump on it and just put a bet on it just before the game starts, rather than having to
wait in line at a (wagering operator agency) or something like that.
(#20 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 26 yrs)
I don't like going down the (wagering operator agency), ‘cause you can get more quicker
response online and you got a time factor, you can bet right up to the last couple of
seconds before the gates open, whereas in the (wagering operator agency) or even
online there’s always the risk of not being able to get a bet on. That's my preference
why I bet online.
(#37 Lottery PGSI High Male 68 yrs)
Yeah, because in the (wagering operator agency) they have to go to the effort of filling
out a card, keeping it in their wallet or whatever and going through the whole process,
whereas with the home side of things you’ve just got to click a couple of buttons, that’s
always there, so it's a lot more straightforward and convenient.
(#19 Race Betting PGSI High Male 52 yrs)
I’d say probably convenience and obviously being able to collect the money straight
away without having to go into a (wagering operator agency) and collect your money.
It's there in your account and you can transfer it straight back into your bank account
without having to drive down the road or any of that type of jazz.
(#6 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 29 yrs)
168
6.4.3 BETTER ODDS/MORE GAMBLING OPTIONS/MORE INFORMATION
Thirteen participants reported that the greater range of gambling options and better
gambling odds were the reasons they gambled online. This group was all male, aged from 18
to 68 years and had slightly more respondents classified as PGSI High (7) than PGSI Low (6).
The following quotes illustrate how more gambling options and better odds influence
decisions to gamble online:
From a gambling standpoint, the odds are better and you're getting offers and
promotions to go with certain people. You don't get that in a (wagering operator
agency).
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
Online you can do all your research, see past results, who scored what. I’m with six
different bookies and I can have a look around to see who has the best odds. If you go
down to the (wagering operator agency) you’re stuck with whatever odds they are
offering at that time. The information is at your fingertips online. It makes educated
gambling a lot easier.
(#5 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 45 yrs)
I can click from one website to the next and check the price on one website to the next
website to the next website. If you had to go and do that at say a (wagering operator
agency) or whatever, you have to go to five different premises to have a look at it. The
convenience of the gambling I think is what gets you in.
(#32 Multiple PGSI High Male 48 yrs)
Even when I go to the races, if I go to the races I will use my phone. The information that
I can get through my phone is more beneficial. You can get more information through it.
Form and what the horse is doing, what they are paying, that sort of stuff.
(#48 Multiple PGSI Low Male 37 yrs)
6.4.4 NOT BEING SURROUNDED BY OTHER GAMBLERS
Seven respondents reported that interactive gambling was more appealing than land‐based
gambling because they did not like being surrounded by other gamblers. This group was
aged between 26 and 71 years, with more than half aged over 45 years. This group had
slightly more respondents classified as PGSI High (4) than PGSI Low (3) and included one
female. Respondents described being able to focus and concentrate better due to lower
noise levels, as well as not having other gamblers around distracting and disrupting their
concentration. Additionally, some respondents discussed negative assumptions they held of
other gamblers in relation to their economic status or character as reasons why gambling
online was preferable. The following quotes highlight these sentiments:
169
Well, basically it's a lot easier and you haven't got the people making the unnecessary
noise or distracting you from what you're trying to do.
(#19 Race Betting PGSI High Male 52 yrs)
Also there are other people there at the (wagering operator agency) and on average I
would say that people who are betting on the horses are not from a high economic
status, so that aspect of it makes it preferable to do at home rather than actually going
into a (wagering operator agency). Also if you were to go into the (wagering operator
agency) there is a stigma attached to actually being seen in there. Even other friends of
mine even prefer Internet.
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
… you don't have to put up with all the humbug, you do quite often at the (wagering
operator agency) in the hotel you have to be tolerant to other patrons’ behaviour. If I go
down to bet I like to study, I like to concentrate, I like to be sure I'm going to get the bet
on. If you go to bet down the local (wagering operator agency) you've got to quite often
wait in the line and for whatever reason the person in front of you is a bit slow or
changes his mind or whatever, it means you could possibly miss out on a bet.
(#37 Lottery PGSI High Male 68 yrs)
I don’t like the social interaction at the track. I find it too noisy and I can’t concentrate
because there’s too much furore around the bookies. Everybody’s screaming and talking
so I lose concentration if I go to the track.
(#41 Race Betting PGSI High Male 71 yrs)
6.4.5 KEEPS THE EVENT INTERESTING
Five respondents explained that gambling online, specifically on sports betting, kept the
game or event interesting. This group consisted of five males, aged 28 to 54 years and all
were rated as PGSI High. As highlighted by the following quotes, these respondents
reported that placing bets on a sports game added an extra dimension to just watching the
event:
I'd be lying if I said I didn't put bets on football games, but I'm only talking far less
money than I ever would put through betting at the track … only so I could have an
interest in the game.
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
I think what attracted me to it was to keep having a little stake to keep the game
interesting … I think it’s the fact that you can view your odds. You feel like you're part of
the action, having a little stake here and there, keeps the game interesting … Spur of the
moment, I mean, it's like if you have a gut feeling … you feel a certain event that
happened, so you basically have a bet based on that moment. What I find with odds is, if
a team is doing really well at the spur of the moment, you tend to go in straight away
and be … Generally the feeling is you watch your game maybe after a quarter, maybe
after two quarters and you get a feel for the game, you get a feel for conditions, you get
170
a feel for the tactics of coaches. Not all games start off and end off as expected on
paper. You get a feel for a game after a quarter and then based on those feelings, you
place a bet.
(#7 Sports Betting PGSI High Male 28 yrs)
6.4.6 SOCIAL VS ANTI‐SOCIAL ACTIVITY
Two respondents reported that gambling online was a social activity for them. Both
respondents were aged in their thirties; one male respondent gambled on a range of
products (Multiple) at a PGSI High level and the other female respondent gambled on poker
at a Low PGSI level. Both respondents played poker online with friends as a social activity:
I was playing in a group one night and one of the other people there that I was having a
wine with mentioned that he was part of the online league through a small group of
people called the (poker league operator) and would I be interested in coming to play
and so I did and strangely enough it’s been almost exactly a year exactly. I view it as a
different form of gambling to what I previously did. I probably spend about $20 on my
credit card probably every three or four months. It costs about $1. It’s usually $1. Each
Sunday they have a $2 game and they have free games as well. They have two or three
free games a week … It’s very friendly. It’s very social. I would call the people intimate
friends, if that makes any sense. Once again, it’s a social thing that I do.
(#22 Poker PGSI Low Female 38 yrs)
However, three respondents reported that gambling online was anti‐social as it could be
quite disruptive to social ties and commitments to family and friends, for example:
… it affects your social activities as well. Sometimes you just don’t want to go out or …
when I hang out with my friends, I always want to go home to get online and watch the
game. It's like I don’t really want to participate in social activities at all.
(#10 Sports Betting PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
It's a bit anti‐social. Back when I was doing it at my desktop computer it was, you sort of
lock yourself away in that room. I didn't leave the room too much.
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
… when you are at home and you’re gambling online … you tend to be a lot more
antisocial to family members or put off other duties that need to be done or it can cause
other problems within the household.
(#2 Lottery PGSI High Male Age not provided)
6.4.7 PROHIBITED FROM GAMBLING AT A LAND‐BASED CASINO
One respondent who reported playing online poker three to six times a week for sessions of
two to four hours, was employed in a casino. Thus, gambling online was the only option
available for him to gamble on casino games without having to travel a long distance:
I work in a casino and I live in a town where there’s only one casino. They actually
prevent employees from going to that casino.
#44 Casino PGSI Low Male 38yrs
171
6.4.8 ABILITY FOR GAMING VENUE EMPLOYEES TO COPY BETS
One respondent who worked in a land‐based gaming venue discussed how the availability of
interactive gambling through smartphones enables venue employees to ‘copy’ the bets of
successful gamblers, thus motivating them to gamble at work when they previously would
not have been able to:
You've got people coming up giving us bets like can I have $300 on X to pay to win and
you think ‘Oh wow, that's amazing odds’ and somebody else does the same, thinking
‘Oh, wow, 20 people in the same hour placed the same bets, I should do the same’ or
you see someone like the more bigger punters, if you will. They'll come in and put a lot
on the big games and win all of them. They think ‘Oh, wow, they know something I don’t
know or they're just really skilled when it comes to it. Next time they come in, I'm just
going to copy their bets.’ … if you're standing behind the bar or behind the kiosk,
nothing stopping you from just picking up your phone, ten seconds after and you've
copied your bet and that happens a lot because a lot of people. .. I've even done it
myself.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24yrs)
This respondent reported that the practice of ‘copying a bet’ was widespread amongst
gaming employees and was a result of mobile phone technology enabling bets to be placed
whilst at work. He also reported that the practice was tolerated by management:
That's something that’s been happening maybe over the last year with iPhones and all
of these smartphones. That's something that's crazy. If you walk into a lot of gaming
venues, like in Victoria and Melbourne especially and you just watch the staff there,
always on their phone and that's for no specific reason. It's because if you're working
the venue for long enough, you know who's in there every day and you know who's
winning the money and you know who's leaving the money…Management knew about
it. Like I was head of gaming .... I had really no problem with them doing it. If they
wanted to do it, it's their money. Why not? If they're allowed to be on their phone
because it's quiet now and then, allow them do to anything.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24yrs)
6.5 ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Forty‐one participants discussed advertisements and promotions associated with interactive
gambling. Of these, two were female and just over half (21) were ranked as PGSI High.
Thirty‐four respondents provided examples of the types of advertisements that influenced
their gambling behaviour. Examples of promotions included bonus credits or cash,
competitions, sign‐up promotions, free bets, bonus bets, refer a friend and get a free bet,
better odds, matching dollar amounts transferred into gambling accounts, and specific
incentives to deposit money at particular times of the day.
172
6.5.1 POSITIVE OPINIONS OF ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONS
Seven respondents discussed online gambling promotions as being positive and described
strategies they use to take advantage of these promotions.
Benefits of promotions
The following quotes describe how some respondents considered promotions to be
beneficial in terms of ‘free money’, with some respondents stating that they ‘loved’
promotions:
I do take advantage of them because it's practically free money in my opinion.
(#52 Multiple PGSI High Male age not provided)
I signed up to almost every Australian bookmaker just to get myself promotions.
‘Deposit like $30 or $50 you get a $100 free bet.’ If you can win on that $100 free bet,
it’s great. If not, then you just spend your money.
(#51 Multiple PGSI High Male 18 yrs)
I love the promotions myself. I think I have about 16 or something bookmaker accounts
that I signed up for.
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
Taking advantage of promotions
Seven respondents reported how they had developed strategies to take advantage of
promotions. These participants were using promotions as an ‘add‐on’ to bets they would
place. The promotions did not act as an incentive to gamble additional money, but were
seen as a bonus to the money that they already intended to gamble, as highlighted in the
quotes below:
At the time that I signed up for a site called (wagering operator.com) and they had a lot
of promotions and I was taking part in them probably once a week. They have sign up
promotions as well like a lot of current betting, sports betting kind of promotions. I've
actually signed up for numerous sites just to take advantage of those and just place a
one‐off bet and then withdraw my money.
(#20 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 26 yrs)
I hunt around looking for them all the time. If I'm going to make a deposit. What I
generally do, I get my pension every Thursday ... A lot of the times I look around for free
100% double your money sort of thing because there is plenty of that sort of stuff
offered. The way I look at it, if you're going to give them money, you might as well, if
you can get double, why not?
(#24 Multiple PGSI High Male 54 yrs)
They are beneficial for me because I bet with one bookie and lay up with another. I think
most people won't do that. Most people would just go after the win. I'll use the online
173
promotion from one bookie and play that off against the online promotion of another
bookie.
(#28 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 52 yrs)
I have. Just some texts that I'd use occasionally they have promotional codes that you
put some money in they will put some in as well. That's more they're putting $30 instead
of 20 so I'm getting 10 free, that’s as far as it goes. I’m going to put some money in
anyway and I may get a few dollars extra.
(#42 Poker PGSI Low Male 46 yrs)
One respondent reported that using an online forum attracted him to gambling online:
Yeah, it's generally through Twitter. That's sort of what has increased my interest in
gambling and the sports. You develop that little online relationship and you talk to them
and share opinions and things like that.
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
6.5.2 NEGATIVE OPINIONS OF ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONS
Five main themes featured amongst negative opinions held about the advertising and
promotion of interactive gambling: that it attracts vulnerable people to gambling, provides
inducements to gamble, that it has reached saturation point during sport, can sometimes be
misleading, and should be regulated or better controlled.
Attracts vulnerable people to gambling
Eight respondents discussed advertisements and promotions in a negative light as they
considered that they encourage vulnerable people to gamble. As highlighted by the
following respondents, problem gamblers and young people were identified as two groups
that were negatively targeted and influenced by interactive gambling advertising and
promotions:
I don't like the principle that it will encourage people who have a problem with gambling
to bet where they probably shouldn't bet.
(#21 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 58 yrs)
I feel the advertising stunts prey on vulnerable people … Well the last one was they were
offering tic‐tac. It costs $30. They will then credit your account $50, so their commission
is $20. Well, I ended up losing on that one, so it was a bad thing. In general I guess, I
think, I would say it’s a bad thing. You get a bit more short‐sighted and not see that it’s
still a big risk. And they try to get you trying to need something, and you get used to
feeling like that. You will just end up losing. Enough will never be enough.
(#53 Multiple PGSI High Male 33 yrs)
Yeah, it can be quite enticing. Obviously now with sporting events or the links and all
that sort of thing. I imagine for kids its quite enticing, especially for young people.
(#13 Sports Betting PGSI High Male 42 yrs)
174
I’m with (wagering operator) and (wagering operator); they have pretty invasive
advertising all the time. It is a pretty high saturation and I do have some concerns with
kids watching and seeing this all the time. But I’m not too sure what you can do about
this. The kids are sort of getting into the idea of gambling before they are mature
enough to really think about it properly.
(#5 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 45 yrs)
Promotions and advertisements were sent to some respondents via email communications
from gambling companies. These emails were often viewed negatively by respondents, who
reported that they often enticed them to gamble and were used by the gambling companies
to lure back gamblers who had ceased gambling for a period of time. The following four
respondents discussed the negative role of email communication from online gambling
operators:
What they do is they send me, from (lottery operator).com, they send those things every
now and then saying if you log into our website and you find these icons you can click on
it and get two extra games. What you end up doing is, because you're logged in there
already, and for me, I know, if I've got any other spare money in there, or it's so
convenient because my credit card details are already there, I'll just go ahead and buy a
few games anyway because I'm just there, so they kind of suck you in that way too. I've
never found an icon to actually get a free game.
(#46 Lottery PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
They send emails about their draws coming up. If I didn't know there was a big draw on
then yes for sure, their emails would tempt me to purchase tickets.
(#47 Lottery PGSI Low Male 38 yrs)
They don't seem to be responsible in terms of that they are promoting excessive
gambling. It's just more the quantity of what's going on. It ebbs and flows ‐ sometimes
there's a lot of promotions, offers from everybody and other times I get them from only
one person. Just seems to be a new bookmaker and new promotion every week in the
email I get.
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
Provides inducements to gamble
Several respondents discussed the role of advertisements and promotions as inducements
to gamble. These respondents reported how they would play extra games as a result of the
advertisement or promotion. For example, two lottery respondents purchased additional
tickets as a result of advertising and promotions. One respondent stated that he would have
been satisfied with the lottery tickets he had already purchased, had he not received
additional advertising and promotions from the gambling company. The following
respondents highlighted the role of advertising and promotions as inducements to gamble:
I think that sometimes there are better odds advertised, especially on sports betting
sites that actually would make you more inclined to bet on a market that you wouldn't
175
normally do. Sometimes there might be a match and they might say, ‘Bet on this and if
this happens then you get money back’ or something. Something that I wouldn't
normally bet on, but would be more inclined to bet on it due to the advertisement. There
have been times that that has happened and I've lost and it's been frustrating. You can
feel that urge to bet again and try to win it back …
(#20 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 26 yrs)
I think most of them would entice me to have a bet, certainly ones that offer you a free
bet if you place a bet or if they offered to match your money with their money or
something like that. That would influence me. I'd be more likely to have a bet than if
they wouldn't.
(#34 Multiple PGSI High Male 34 yrs)
Actually, between (lottery operator) and (lottery operator), they send out one every
couple of days reminding people, like with the hundred million one yesterday, it was
every day they were sending out emails saying, ‘Have you got your ticket, have you got
your ticket?’ Between that and the (lottery operator) one I ended up buying seven
tickets where I would normally just get the one, but because of that I got six extra
lottery tickets. I think I've spent an extra $30 or $40 just because of that one night's
draw. The emails prompted me to buy more tickets. If they didn't send anything then I
probably would have just been satisfied with that one set of games that I set up when I
started.
(#46 Lottery PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
For people who don't have a gambling problem, they are probably a good thing, but
certainly one thing that they do is attract people who do have gambling problems …
(#21 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 58 yrs)
Yes, I bought five tickets, five or six tickets in the (lottery operator).com one and that's
because they kept sending those stupid reminders where I had bought my tickets two
weeks earlier.
(#46 Lottery PGSI Low Male 37 yrs)
Advertising saturation
Respondents raised the issue of gambling advertising saturation. Sponsorship of sports by
betting agencies, commentators discussing betting odds during sporting events and the
advertising of live betting odds during matches were judged as persuasive. The following
quotes highlight how these respondents saw gambling advertising as saturated:
… there is a lot of the advertising, it's everywhere. As someone who gambles, that's
actually a little bit disconcerting that everywhere you go ‐ it's just everywhere.
Everything sponsored by (names three wagering operators). It's a bit too in your face.
It's just a little too much now and it's gone too far … Sometimes they're on the front
page in the paper or they sponsor things and it's just everywhere. That's where it's a bit
too much. But it seems to be the way it's going, at the moment.
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
176
You watch any sporting program these days and even the commentators are paid off to
talk about gambling.
(#50 Multiple PGSI Low Male 32 yrs)
It’s always in your face in regards to advertising, live advertising during football games,
for example. The problem that I see, when you watch football games, they’re in prime
time. We’re talking like 7:30, 8:00 and the kids are watching it with you, so then at
halftime, when (wagering operator) comes up and gives you the prices and the kids
catch onto that. I’ve seen if firsthand with my little nephew, ‘oh, good offers, $2.00
favourite’. He’s only like ten years old. I feel very sad when that happens. I think it’s
terrible. I think live advertising of live odds etc. should be banned completely in the same
way that they’ve banned cigarette advertisers. I think it should be banned completely or
they need to advertise it outside of those hours, late at night, for example, when little
kids aren’t watching TV.
(#2 Lottery PGSI High Male age not provided)
I think when I first started gambling online you had a range of niche sort of bookmakers
who didn't big note themselves, they just did their business and their names weren't
known outside of racing. Outside of racing, no one could have named a bookmaker.
Whereas now, it's like every person who watches TV, unless you’re watching (wagering
operator) news during the day, you know about (names three wagering operators) and
I'm not sure that I particularly like that. It's so normalised now that even my kids will see
ads for having a bet on sport or something. When I started betting I did it knowing that
it was a bit of an obscure thing, it wasn't a mainstream type of thing to do. Now it's
becoming that way and I'm not sure that's entirely good that it's normalised that way.
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
Misleading advertising
One respondent discussed advertising and promotions in terms of social media. This
respondent raised Twitter as a non‐traditional source of advertising and promotion for
gambling. The use of in‐house tipsters by gambling operators was seen by this respondent
as questionable. This respondent believed that such techniques were misleading and led to
gamblers believing that in‐house tipsters had inside information on credible betting options:
Or you sort of see them on Twitter where they'll have a social media manager and they
check conversation with people they know are their high dollar customers. There's one
called (wagering operator), ‘who are you betting on tonight? Who are your top picks?’
And basically discuss ... it's not encouraging you to put a bet on but its reaffirming that
betting is positive. You go on and think maybe there’s a better chance if the guy from
the online betting agency is doing it. And then (wagering operator) has got an in‐house
tipster who puts up his best bets for the day. Which when you look at it and go ‘Well, he
works for the bookie so he must have inside information’. He's a more credible source so
it's almost like the reverse of telling you not to gamble. I haven't seen anything from
them about responsible gambling. You just don't see it. That's part of the thing of being
involved in that kind of sub‐culture. You can kind of look at it and go ‘Okay yeah, it's
harmless.’ But at the same time if it's to someone who doesn't have that control, or
177
whatever, then it can get out of control. And that's just part of it. I've got a marketing
background; I understand what they're doing in terms of managing their community
and spurring conversations and things like that. It's not quite encouraging you, it's just a
guy ... but it's kind of there.
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
More control needed over advertising and promotions
Some respondents made recommendations on the advertising and promotion of interactive
gambling. Issues raised related to increasing regulation, banning of specific promotions such
as free bets, banning of live betting odds during sporting games, and the advertising of
gambling during sports.
I think other measures should be put in place, maybe the industry be could be regulated.
For example, to try not to entice people. For example, through (wagering operator), you
open an account that will match your initial deposit. I think that’s an enticement. I think
things like that should be banned. It’s the same way as alcoholic shots are banned after
midnight in a nightclub, for example, because we’re talking about the same sort of
addictive behaviours. Those sort of measures should be put in place to restrict that.
(#2 Lottery PGSI High Male age not provided)
Another thing I reckon, I'm not sure they're still doing it, but I know maybe a year or so
ago adverts on TV to promote local games. You hear the presenters say ‘Collingwood
looks amazing at the moment. They’re paying $1.60 for the win’ or something like this
when you've just been sitting down watching the local game, not even thinking about
gambling. You think yes, Collingwood is going to win and you got to hear them saying
they're paying $1.60 to win and then you think, ‘Oh, wow. If I couldn't go online and
place a bet for $1,000 and I think they've going to win, I've just won $600’. So I reckon
that's a major thing that needs to be stopped. Actually, during games mostly. Yes, any
sports event like advertising the odds of the game by presenters … if you hear that every
10‐15 minutes per show there is, that's going to affect a lot of people.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24 yrs)
I think probably how they throw things at you on TV halfway through halftime on
football games, the betting odds … I don’t think that should be around. I think people
who are going to bet on it, know the game’s on and know where to go. They don’t need
to be reminded.
(#6 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 29 yrs)
… they are playing sports and at the same time promoting gambling. This is not good ...
There are a lot of billboards and things ... All the advertising for (wagering
operator).com, (wagering operator) com. It is not in the spirit of the game. They should
refrain from that.
(#9 Sports Betting PGSI High Male age not provided)
178
6.6 FEATURES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING THAT CONTRIBUTE TO GAMBLING
PROBLEMS
Participants were asked about the features of interactive gambling that might contribute to
gambling problems and how they tried to ensure that they controlled their interactive
gambling.
6.6.1 DIGITAL MONEY
Nineteen participants discussed how not handling actual cash whilst gambling online had a
negative impact and made them gamble differently, compared to handling cash at land‐
based venues. This group included one female, was aged between 18 years and 60 years,
and slightly more respondents (10) were categorised as PGSI High. These interviewees
reported often losing track of expenditure during sessions, with losses only becoming
apparent later when viewing bank statements or when discovering they had limited
available funds remaining. Participants also reported that it was easier to chase losses when
gambling with ‘digital money’.
It is absolutely, totally different. It's unbelievably different … the last time I had a bet
and it added up to $5 or $10 on a horse down at the pub. I was actually thinking how I
would have done this at home on the Internet. I'd probably have put on $50 or $100 on
that if I was still betting over the Internet because I'm telling you it doesn't feel like
money. It doesn't feel like money until you lose it.
(#14 Race Betting PGSI High Male 58 yrs)
It's definitely the fact that you're not touching the ... that it's not real money. There's
very much the projection that it's just numbers. Especially with online pokies. It's not
real money; it's like a video game. You don't see it until you get your bank statement
next month and you go ‘oh shit, I actually bet more than I thought I had’. There are
times where, after you do a couple of silly things, you go to deposit another $50 and
there's no money in the account. And I go ‘Hold on. There should be money in the
account.’ There've been times where I've been at the pub or the casino or I've been at
Rose Hill or the races. If you lose what you took in with you, you've got to make the trip
to the ATM, press the button see the amount on the screen and hand it over to
somebody. So there's a lot of steps you go through to get that money. Online you just
press a button and it's there again because my credit card numbers are stored on there
and it's an instant. I hit submit and the account's ready for the next race or the next
hand of poker. It's just instantaneous.
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
If you go to a venue you know when you're pulling out notes and stuffing them into a
machine ... Whereas online gambling is just numbers on a computer screen, I've fallen
into that trap before as well, because it wasn't actual physical money, I felt like I was
removed from it. You would jump on even though you know you shouldn't.
(#52 Multiple PGSI High Male Age not provided)
179
I know for a fact if they were handing over notes at a (wagering operator agency), you’d
be a bit more withheld on putting big bets on. When it's online it's just a number, it's a
digital number on a screen. It doesn’t really emphasise that you’ve got $500 cash in your
wallet. You wouldn’t go put that on … That’s my theory because I sure as hell wouldn’t. I
think it's sort of like a … it's almost imaginary money in way.
(#6 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 29 yrs)
6.6.2 LOWER PERCEIVED ‘VALUE’ OF INTERACTIVE WINNINGS
Linked to use of digital money, some participants discussed the amount of winnings they
would need before they would consider withdrawing the money and banking it. One
participant discussed how he had gambled his lottery winnings instead of withdrawing them
because the winnings were sitting in his Internet gambling account. The value of the amount
won appeared lower because he claimed he never would see it:
I just don't see the value of asking for the money to be deposited … into my bank
account. Maybe if it was transferred immediately … and they automatically transfer it to
your credit card, that would stop me from spending that. Like that $1,350 I won, if they
deposited that right back into my bank account I would not have spent it on the Internet
at all, no way. … it's good to win that $1,350 but technically, I'm not going to ever see
that money because I'm going to spend it all. That's how it's been.
(#46 Lottery PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
This participant estimated spending approximately $20,000 per year over the last four or
five years playing online lottery and said he would need winnings of around $19,000 in
order to withdraw the money.
Another participant referred to online gambling winnings as having lesser perceived value:
If you have $100 online it’s not as much as having $100 in your wallet. It doesn't feel like
the same. When I win a lot I just feel like it turns into nothing. And when you're losing,
you always want to chase it but sometimes you can’t control it. You realise after you
you’ve done it, oh, wow, I could have done a lot with that money.
(#51 Multiple PGSI High Male 18 yrs)
6.6.3 CREDIT GAMBLING
Eighteen participants discussed concerns about, and the inappropriateness of, the provision
of credit from gambling operators, ease of use of credit cards, how credit cards were not
allowed for land‐based gambling, and negative experiences with credit card use. This group
of 18 included all four females in the sample. Ages ranged from 18 to 72 years, with the
majority (13) aged under 40 years. This group contained equal numbers of participants from
the PGSI High and Low groups.
180
Offers of credit from operators
Respondents discussed offers of credit from gambling operators and many considered this
inappropriate. The following respondents considered that using credit cards to gamble
online was too easy and could result in gambling‐related problems:
There’s things on their sites that they say apply for credit. I mean there shouldn’t be any
anything like that. Well, why would someone need to borrow money to gamble? You
shouldn’t borrow money to gamble. Yes, that’s enticing someone with a problem, that’s
not responsible by the website. They shouldn’t be allowed to do that. The last two sites
I’ve been on had it. They both have it. I'd never be tempted to do it. Never.
(#51 Multiple PGSI High Male 18 yrs)
… they're willing to give me $5,000 credit with a simple click. All I need to do is select
$5,000 from the drop down, click inquire, you'll get applied instantly and bang, instantly
I've been given a $5,000 loan which I probably couldn’t afford … You're just asking for
problematic gamblers when they do that.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24 yrs)
Ease of gambling with credit
Respondents considered that using credit cards to gamble online was too easy and could
result in problematic gambling. The following quotes highlight the sentiments of these
respondents:
The ease of it. The ease of using your credit card. It's easy to top up it. I think out there's
a five grand limit out there a day or a month. It’s easy to keep pumping more money
into it. You can just use your credit card as cash. The ease of using your card.
(#23 Multiple PGSI High Male 34 yrs)
… my son was telling me recently how he got hooked into it and he said it suddenly
dawned on him that he’d …spent $300 on his credit card and he said it just crept up on
him... He just got such a shock when he realised how much he’d spent. … He just ran up
the credit. It was just so easy to just go, press the button and the money was there. He
just gambled away. He’s not, generally not a big gambler but he said ‘The poker really
got him in.’ ... It’s too easy … to access a credit card and build up a big debt.
(#3 Lottery PGSI Low Female 72 yrs)
Online you just press a button and it's there again because my credit card numbers are
stored on there and it's an instant. I hit submit and the account's ready for the next race
or the next hand of poker. It's just instantaneous.
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
Gambling on credit not allowed in land‐based venues
Several participants highlighted that betting on credit was not permitted when gambling at
land‐based venues, which offered some protection compared to the online environment.
Three said:
181
There is also a real potential for people to chase their losses online and also when they
can use their credit card. It can probably get out of hand more quickly rather than if they
are handing over their actual cash at a (wagering operator agency).
(#5 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 45 yrs)
You go to the pub and you've got an account. You can get $1,000 out per day or so out
of an ATM ... If I had a credit card with a $20,000 limit and there was no balance from it,
I could put $20,000 into my betting account.
(#14 Race Betting PGSI High Male 58 yrs)
In a (wagering operator) agency you wouldn't be able to do that. You can't go out there
with a credit card and say I want $5,000 credit because they don't take a credit card. I
think in that regard, that is where the Internet gambling is the bad gambling.
(#32 Multiple PGSI High Male 48 yrs)
Negative experiences using credit
Several participants recalled occasions where gambling online with credit had resulted in
negative consequences for them or their acquaintances. For example:
Again, if it's a late night thing, if I'm ten foot and bullet proof I can bet plenty, putting
more money in it than I could afford and then losing it … If you've got access to credit
cards and cheque accounts that have money in them, you tend to put more in and try
chase your losses until you get it back, which can be very, very dangerous.
(#14 Race Betting PGSI High Male 58 yrs)
One mate … has a lot of problems with his gambling, always because of credit cards.
He'll get another $5,000 credit card and use that as his gambling money.
(#32 Multiple PGSI High Male 48 yrs)
Another participant, speaking of colleagues in his workplace, a land‐based gaming venue
explained:
… 22 of us who work in the gaming room … most of them gamble online. I know a few of
them have placed bets which they just couldn't afford, mostly due to credit betting or
sports bets, like they're watching the game and ‘Oh, Collingwood's going to win
tonight.’ Going to (wagering operator) within 30 seconds, (wagering operator)’s giving
them $2,000 to gamble. They haven't got a single penny in their bank account and they
owe about $6,000 on their credit cards and (wagering operator)’s just given them
$2,000 which they know if they lose there’s no hope they can pay back.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24yrs)
One participant reported that he was fortunate not to have a credit card because he would
‘spend it all’ on lottery tickets:
182
… if it was a credit card and I had a $10,000 limit, in things like $100 million dollar draw,
I would spend hundreds of dollars on the tickets. With the (lottery operator) one,
because you can go in syndicates, some of those syndicates cost thousands of dollars. I
… think, ‘Wow, this is like seven and half thousand chances to win’... if my lottery
account was attached to my credit card ... I would spend it all.
(#46 Lottery PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
Gambling with credit should not be allowed
Some respondents considered that gambling online with credit should not be permitted as
this could prove problematic for gamblers who experienced difficulties with controlling their
gambling. A number of respondents recommended that gambling with credit should be
prohibited, as reflected in the following quotes:
One of the things that I find strange with the online gambling is that people can gamble
on credit. That seems strange to me. I’d think that would be one of the first regulatory
things that could be addressed where they can ban someone from spending the money
before they got it. I would have thought that this would have been an easy fix in terms
of protecting people. That people can’t gamble on credit. They should have the money
before they can put the bet on. That would be something that would be a worthwhile
restriction
(#5 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 45 yrs)
I don't like that you can gamble online with credit. I don't think this is right. It should not
be permitted. People can get into trouble that way, too quickly.
(#36 Lottery PGSI Low Female 29 yrs)
6.6.4 EASY ACCESSIBILITY
As discussed earlier, numerous participants discussed the easy accessibility of interactive
gambling, with some feeling it overly encourages chasing losses. For example:
I don't like the fact that you can gamble for 24 hours … I think it just leads to people
gambling and chasing their money.
(#32 Multiple PGSI High Male 48 yrs)
Fourteen participants noted that the convenience of interactive gambling, combined with
isolation and boredom at home, was a contributing factor to problematic gambling. This
group was aged between 20 and 72 years and included two females. Most of these
respondents (10) were classified as PGSI High. Some PGSI High participants seemed
particularly vulnerable to the easy accessibility of interactive gambling, due to loneliness or
disability:
My wife died six years ago … I’ve been living on my own ever since. I gamble practically,
well, every day I would say I gamble because I’ve got nothing else to do now.
(#41 Race Betting PGSI High Male 71 yrs)
183
I'm on a disability pension and I'm stuck at home all the time. Basically it’s
entertainment. It keeps my mind going. I get up in the morning and I've got my
computer and Foxtel out in my shed and I only gamble on what's on TV … so that I can
watch it and have an interest in it. It gives me something to do and it keeps my mind
active.
(#24 Multiple PGSI High Male 54 yrs)
I’m not a social type person. I don’t like to be gregarious and go to parties and mix with
people too much. I am a Vietnam vet with PTSD.
(#41 Race Betting PGSI High Male 71 yrs)
6.6.5 ABSENCE OF SCRUTINY
Ten participants referred to the lack of scrutiny whilst gambling online. All ten respondents
were male and aged between 26 and 58 years. This group contained equal numbers of
participants from the PGSI Low and High groups. Unlike land‐based gambling where other
gamblers and employees could scrutinise their gambling and ATM visits, lack of scrutiny was
considered a contributing factor to longer gambling sessions and higher gambling
expenditure. Several participants talked about feeling anonymous online and the lack of a
‘human element’ where there was no one looking out for them or advising when they were
gambling too much:
You just keep gambling because there's no one to cut you off.
(#14 Race Betting PGSI High Male 58 yrs)
I think it's the … probably the intimacy or the privacy that you're not accountable or
you're not seen to be having a bet, you can do it within the privacy of your own home,
your own work place. I think that's it … It's just yourself and a computer, there’s no one
else there so you certainly don't feel like you're guilty about it. You would feel less guilty
about having a bigger bet I would think
(#34 Multiple PGSI High Male 34 yrs)
... you're not really accountable to anybody. It's happened to me where I could sit here
all day and place losing bet after losing bet after losing bet online and no one’s going
ring me and say, ‘hey’ … Whereas, if I'm at the (wagering operator agency) or a pub and
the person saw me go to the ATM and walk back to the window and keep on putting
losing bets they might say ‘Hey mate, you think you've had enough?’
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
I can see there would be a negative to it, once again because of its convenience. You're
just pressing a button and you've done it, it's a bit anonymous. You might be a bit
removed from the having to see the same cashier several times. If you're anonymous,
you might be more comfortable in making purchases that people may see it as a
problem. You wouldn't do it if you were in the same (wagering operator agency) and
you may think twice about it.
184
(#47 Lottery PGSI Low Male 38 yrs)
6.6.6 POOR IDENTIFICATION VERIFICATION
Numerous participants discussed the ability to gamble online prior to identification
verification. Participants considered this was a loophole that needed addressing to prevent
underage gambling, with one participant reporting that he had gambled online as a minor
with a parent’s credit card. Additionally, participants considered it a double standard that
identification verification was required to withdraw winnings but not for initial deposits into
online gambling accounts:
You can deposit as much as you like without them verifying your account. … without the
hundred point check … but you need it to withdraw … I can join up to a site now, put
$100 in, win an extra $100, try and pull it out in two minutes and they won’t let you do
it.
(#51 Multiple PGSI High Male 18 yrs)
There's no real checking. If go into the gaming venue or the casino. Before you open the
door you get ID’d. Go online at home and you’d be 15 years old, 16 years old like I was.
Mum gave me the credit card. ‘Here's $50. Yeah. No problem.’ There's no verification.
They need more verification when you set up accounts.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24 yrs)
6.6.7 INDUCEMENTS TO GAMBLE
Eight participants discussed advertisements and promotions for interactive gambling in a
negative way. Participants considered these promotions prey on vulnerable people,
irresponsibly encourage excessive gambling, and especially target and appeal to problem
gamblers. Negative opinions of advertising and promotions for interactive gambling have
been discussed previously (Section 6.5), so only some short indicative quotes are given here:
I feel the advertising stunts prey on vulnerable people …
(#53 Multiple PGSI High Male 33 yrs)
… certainly one thing that they do is attract people who do have gambling problems …
(#21 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 58 yrs)
… I feel that is where they can pull in the people that are excessive gamblers.
(#20 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 26 yrs)
6.6.8 INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL
Four participants discussed the negative influence of alcohol when gambling online:
185
… it can be easily abused and harm the people who start drinking and start using online
gambling, I think it's an absolute disaster.
(#6 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 29 yrs)
The same participant reported how the combination of smart phone technology and alcohol
enabled people to place bets in situations where gambling would previously not have taken
place:
… it could be sort of a cocktail for a disaster…. When you're drunk and at a party, you're
not going to be going down the (wagering operator agency) and put a bet on, but if it's
on your mobile in your pocket, you're susceptible to maybe doing that.
(#6 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 29 yrs)
Another participant reported how gambling online whilst intoxicated could lead to chasing
losses:
If you've got enough grog on board and you bet and lose it to start with, then you take
risks and try to get it back.
(#14 Race Betting PGSI High Male 58 yrs)
6.6.9 CONTROL STRATEGIES USED
Nineteen participants reported they had limits in place when gambling online. This group
had twice as many PGSI High as Low score participants, was aged between 18 and 72 years
and contained one woman. Five of these 19 participants described themselves as
‘professional gamblers’, were all male and relatively young (all under 41 years) compared
with the overall sample.
Types of limits
Limits used included those facilitated by interactive gambling providers, exclusions or
blocking from specific gambling sites, limiting the amount deposited or available in a
gambling account, and limiting the amount gambled per day or per week to a dollar amount
or to a percentage of overall funds available.
One participant utilised limit setting capabilities available through his online lottery
provider:
(lottery operator) … will just set up your account. You can put in a maximum amount … I
think it’s per day or per week or whatever but mine’s very low, so I know I can’t go over
that.
(#4 Lottery PGSI Low Male 51 yrs)
Two participants had excluded or blocked themselves from several Internet gambling sites
as a strategy to stay within their limits:
186
I cannot gamble online now because I've black banned myself on most of the major
internet sites.
(#14 Race Betting PGSI High Male 58 yrs)
Now I decided to refrain from it because I feel if it starts becoming a habit or something
then it’s good for fun but then it starts becoming a habit and I will suffer income
devastation from it, so I try to refrain from it nowadays … Yes I do have certain
strategies, and one of the strategies online is that I have installed software to block
these sites. So that I am not using them or trying to use them as a source of income. I
think that it saves me a lot also. As I felt I was in stages of being addicted and so I sort of
controlled myself and now I am not that much into it, and that’s good.
(#9 Sports Betting PGSI High Male Age not provided)
Three participants created gambling limits based on a proportion of funds available in their
Internet gambling account – 5% for the following two participants:
Depending on what I’ve got in there. If there’s a decent amount, it’ll be about less than
5%, a little bit.
(#51 Multiple PGSI High Male 18 yrs)
You just don’t go in and just play your whole bank balance on something. You’ve got to
play within your limit. You’ve got to have your strategies. Like I said before, your next
loss is just round the corner. I play about, what, 5% … I've got a strategy in place where I
keep to my limit.
(#7 Sports Betting PGSI High Male 28 yrs)
Most of this group of 19 participants used informal means to establish limits, including
‘common sense’ to determine the amounts to gamble, restricting the amount of available
money in Internet gambling accounts, restricting bets to $1, or setting a budget for the
week:
I just don't have much money in there. I don't keep a lot in my account.
(#32 Multiple PGSI High Male 48 yrs)
Even though I like to gamble I have common sense now. I have a budget for the week. I
think it’s about $100.00 a week and I’ll do that within three bets; say $35.00 on three
bets a week and that’s been given the okay, it’s controllable.
(#16 Poker PGSI High Male 40 yrs)
I limit myself to about 200 bucks a week win or lose … if you've got self‐control, you stay
within your budget. Make sure it doesn't affect anybody else, there's always food on my
table, always pay my bills … I'm a self‐funded retiree and if I blaze up the first day, which
is very seldom, I don't bet for the week.
(#37 Lottery PGSI High Male 68 yrs)
I limit my bets to a dollar and I’ve become very disciplined with that … I just don’t
change it.
(#3 Lottery PGSI Low Female 72 yrs)
187
Examples of limits not working
However, nine participants provided examples of when their self‐imposed limits did not
work. These respondents were all male, aged between 18 and 68 years, with the majority
(7) under 40 years old. All but one respondent was categorised as PGSI High. The following
participants described occasions where they chased losses:
Sometimes you chase, sometimes I go okay there's still a horse I'd like to have a go at so
I'll spend my money, I’ll put a little more in or I'll go into it a little bit more.
(#23 Multiple PGSI High Male 34 yrs)
There've been times where I've said I'm going to deposit $50 today and then whatever it
is ‐ you put money on a team they lose by a point ‐ and then you try and get it back. So
there's definitely times when that happens.
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
One participant described how his limits did not work when he was drinking and gambling
and another described placing ‘stupid bets’. A further participant discussed how relentless
advertising from a lottery company resulted in his limits not working:
I bought … five or six tickets in the (lottery operator).com one and that's because they
kept sending those stupid reminders where I had bought my tickets two weeks earlier…
Now, they've already started advertising for the next one, for the December one
because it's up to 31 million. I bought more for that jackpot one too.
(#46 Lottery PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
Two participants discussed ‘losing control’ and having a ‘brain snap’ when they exceeded
their self‐imposed limits, as highlighted here:
I always do that (set a limit), but sometimes when you get so much into it you just lost
control … Couple of times I set my limit to just say $50, but it will go up to $100, $150 …
they should not allow me to add on more and more just to keep continue. ‘Cause it's
very easy, they just give you a credit card. They ask for your credit card details and you
can just keep continue.
(#45 Multiple PGSI High Male 39 yrs)
6.7 RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING MEASURES FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
This section presents findings on the participants’ views on the responsible gambling
measures available online compared to land‐based venues. They discussed whether
interactive gambling requires more, the same or fewer responsible gambling measures than
land‐based gambling, and additional measures they felt should be in place in the interactive
gambling environment.
188
6.7.1 RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING REQUIREMENTS IN THE INTERACTIVE VS LAND‐BASED
ENVIRONMENT
Thirty respondents considered that interactive gambling requires more responsible
gambling measures than land‐based gambling. The reasons given for this were: it was too
easy to gamble with credit online (8 respondents), the interactive environment is currently
not very responsible (7), interactive gambling feels different because of ‘digital money’ (7),
there is a lack of scrutiny and interaction from gaming employees and others online (7),
interactive gambling is too convenient (6) and because of the greater access to and range of
gambling opportunities online (2).
Fourteen respondents reported that interactive gambling required the same level of
responsible gambling measures as land‐based gambling. Most of these respondents (11)
believed that interactive gambling was just like other forms of gambling and so required
similar measures to land based gambling. The following quote highlights the sentiment of
these respondents:
Probably just the same I think. It's all open to problems. I think venues take advantage
of punters just as much as online.
(#25 Multiple PGSI Low Male 41 yrs)
However, two respondents believed that interactive gambling did not require any additional
responsible gambling measures as it was ultimately an individual choice to gamble and not
something that was determined by the availability or range of responsible gambling
measures. These respondents’ views are highlighted below:
I don’t know, because I think fundamentally it comes down to the person rather than
what the sites do or don’t do.
(#19 Race Betting PGSI High Male 52 yrs)
Like I said, it's your own choice. Everybody that gambles knows what happens if they
lose too much money. Some people just can't help themselves and that's their problem
again. If it's not online gambling they might be out with their mates throwing pennies in
the air. They're just a compulsive gambler so whether it's there or not, people who want
to bet are going to find some way to have a bet whether it's online or not.
(#26 Multiple PGSI High Male age not provided)
No respondents believed that interactive gambling required fewer responsible gambling
measures than land‐based gambling.
6.7.2 RECOMMENDED RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING MEASURES FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Twenty‐seven respondents believed that interactive sites did not currently do enough to
protect gamblers from harm. This group comprised one female and was aged between 18
189
and 71 years, with most respondents (19) aged under 50 years. Slightly more respondents
within this group (15) were rated as High (PGSI 3+) on the PGSI.
Respondents recommended a range of initiatives that interactive gambling operators should
be required to adopt. Eighteen respondents recommended formal limits should be provided
for interactive gamblers; eight respondents recommended responsible gambling and help‐
seeking messages be advertised online; six respondents recommended the removal of credit
betting capabilities; four respondents recommended that industry be responsible for
identifying problem gamblers through scrutiny of online gambling accounts; and two
respondents recommended the introduction of minimum standards for responsible
gambling, including introducing new regulations and laws.
The major theme of limit‐setting was discussed at some length by 18 respondents, 9 of
whom reported that they currently use some limits (as discussed previously). These
interviewees recommended limits on the amount able to be deposited into online accounts,
limits on the amount able to be lost in a gambling session and limits on the availability of
credit to gamble online.
As highlighted by the following quotes, a number of respondents advocated restricting
gambling accounts, automatic limits and credit limits:
Some of the sites have limits on the amount you can deposit or bet and I think that is a
good thing. You can have restrictions on your account. However, other sites don't have
this. It depends on which site.
(#27 Multiple PGSI Low Male 34 yrs)
I think once a gambler has reached a certain credit limit, they can't pay or if their
account is zero every week because they gamble away their pay cheques, their account
should be closed. There should be some sort of accountability. There's obviously
problems. You can identify problem gamblers.
(#32 Multiple PGSI High Male 48 yrs)
Respondents acknowledged that setting and enforcing limitations would not be an easy
task. The following respondents reported how gamblers could circumvent limits through
gambling on multiple sites:
Well, I work in IT and in my professional opinion I don't really think there is much more
the sites can do to stop problem gamblers from accessing the sites, based on the fact
that there's so many of them. Even if most of them imposed a daily limit on the amount
that could be deposited, that doesn't mean that person can't spend that same amount
on every single site.
(#52 Multiple PGSI High Male age not provided)
With the Australian ones, with the (lottery operator) one … we can't have more than
$300 in your virtual purse to buy lottery tickets, but that doesn't stop anybody from
spending $300 and then depositing more money.
190
(#46 Lottery PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
The following two respondents highlighted the difficulties involved in attempting to forcibly
impose limits on interactive gambling, which they considered to be a very personal choice:
I don’t know. That’s very hard because you’re delving in a very personal area if
somebody is doing it in the privacy of their own home. I don’t know what sort of
intrusion you can make on that apart from imposing limits on how much can be used on
a particular site. I’m not sure. No, I don’t know, not at a personal level.
(#1 Lottery PGSI High Male 36 yrs)
I don't know. I'm of the opinion that ... you're accountable for your own decision. So I
don't really know what you could realistically enforce them to do.
(#49 Multiple PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
Respondents were undecided about who should have the responsibility for establishing and
enforcing limits – individuals, government or industry. As the following respondent stated:
I don’t actually know what they could do … because everyone has different sources of
income and has more money to bet, so you can’t really put a cap on those things.
(#6 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 29 yrs)
One respondent felt that it would not be in the interests of interactive gambling companies
to try and restrict or limit the amount gambled:
I don't think they can do anything, I don't think. They don't really care; they just want
you to spend your money.
(#23 Multiple PGSI High Male 34 yrs)
6.8 HELP‐SEEKING BEHAVIOUR OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Participants were asked for their views on help for interactive gamblers with gambling
problems or at‐risk of harm. Two shared their experiences of having sought help in the past,
while others identified what they thought would be useful.
Two respondents had attended counselling in the past for problem gambling but both
reported that counselling did not help. One respondent explained that while he was
attending counselling he was not willing to stop gambling. At the time he was not in a
relationship, but reported that his gambling was now under control as he was currently in a
relationship and had made financial commitments to his new partner. He reported that he
gambled problematically when he was single and did not have the same responsibilities.
The other respondent attended counselling and did not find it a positive experience, as
detailed below:
191
Yes, everyone that goes there is a liar. The bloke that was running the show he was an
ex‐gambler and he was even rattling the coffee tin money to put bets on and he got
sacked … I was still gambling while I was going there. I was doing it a little bit less and
less and less because I had my wife on my back. She was going with me. She was trying
to help me. She was sending me to counsellors and coming with me and everything else.
In that sense, she was trying to help and I was trying to do the right thing, but in all
honesty, I had no hope of controlling it at that point.
(#41 Race Betting PGSI High Male 71 yrs)
For this respondent, a change came about when he observed how detrimental gambling had
been for other gamblers attending a peer support group:
I think I just had enough. I was sick of everybody telling me that I was a loser and I was
this and that and I was sick of having no money, sick of my marriage going on the rocks
because of it. I met a lot of people at Gamblers Anonymous that they’d mortgaged their
parents’ homes and then lost the house. They’d done all sorts of things. There were
people there that have done gaol time for robberies. There were other people there that
were tied up with the trots and the races and they were talking about fixing races so
they could make big money. They’re all sitting in Gamblers Anonymous broke. I met a lot
of people. There’s a lot of experience to be gained in going.
(#41 Race Betting PGSI High Male 71 yrs)
Nineteen respondents considered that the most beneficial help for gamblers experiencing
problems with interactive gambling would be counselling and the services provided by the
gambling help agencies. A further eight respondents considered that a form of exclusion or
an automatic cut‐off when a predetermined amount was gambled would be a more
beneficial approach. This group was divided on whether this should be a voluntary (2
respondents) or enforced (6) exclusion or limit.
6.9 OVERALL OPINIONS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Respondents were asked a series of questions asking them to give their opinions about
interactive gambling and what were the ‘best’ things and ‘worst’ things about it.
6.9.1 POSITIVE OPINIONS
Fourteen respondents held an overall positive opinion about interactive gambling. This
group consisted of one female and was aged between 20 and 72 years old. Most
respondents in this group (9 respondents) were ranked as PGSI Low.
Within this group, seven respondents stated that they had a positive opinion of interactive
gambling because it was convenient and easy for them to use, for example:
Just the choices that you have. Obviously, a competitive industry and just the offers
available to people who are interested in gambling. For example, free bets. For example,
192
promotions where you can get your money returned, sort of promotions. I guess the best
thing is just the convenience.
(#2 Lottery PGSI High Male age not provided)
Personally I think it's a good thing, because before I had an account I would just be
walking down to the (wagering operator) agency every time I wanted to put a bet down.
It's not really practical. I don't want to be going into a pub every day or two for that sort
of thing.
(#29 Multiple PGSI High Male 20 yrs)
I think it’s a good thing for those that want to bet on racehorses. It’s a very convenient
way of doing it, a much more convenient than previously. I suppose it’s a good thing in
the sense that it provides amenity or utility if people want to bet.
(#35 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 60 yrs)
The process of buying my lottery tickets online is pretty easy and for me it’s positive.
(#38 Lottery PGSI Low Male 71 yrs)
A number of respondents who held a positive opinion of interactive gambling emphasised
that individuals should have responsibility for their own gambling. These respondents
believed that gamblers needed to stay within their own limits and have self‐control when
gambling, as highlighted by the following quotes:
I think, generally speaking, Australians love to have a bet on the races, on the sports,
just to keep the game interesting. There's nothing wrong … I think you’ve got to know
how to play within your limits … you’ve got to control yourself, that’s the important
thing.
(#7 Sports Betting PGSI High Male 28 yrs)
I figure it all comes down to your own self control and keeping to what you know, what
you can bet I suppose. That's how I see it. I liken it to seeing people drinking excess
alcohol but we're still selling alcohol. People just need to do what they can do.
(#48 Multiple PGSI Low Male 37 yrs)
Some professional gamblers pointed to the benefit of being able to earn a living from online
gambling:
It has allowed me to quit my job in a factory and for the last four years make a
reasonable income, and that’s solely Internet. I would have never been able to do what I
do now pre‐Internet.
(#11 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 52 yrs)
For what I do, it's good. I know a lot of people do the same as me.
(#28 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 52 yrs)
193
6.9.2 NEGATIVE OPINIONS
Sixteen respondents held a negative opinion of interactive gambling. This group was aged
between 18 and 72 years, contained equal numbers of PGSI High and PGSI Low participants,
and contained three women. Their negative views of interactive gambling were because of
its 24/7 availability, because it offers credit gambling and because of the negative
consequences it had caused for them.
Available 24 hours a day 7 days a week
Three participants viewed interactive gambling as negative because it was continually
available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These respondents were all male and two were
classified as PGSI High. The following quote highlights the sentiments held by these
respondents:
I don't like the fact that you can gamble for 24 hours. I don't think that's right. I think it
just leads to people gambling and chasing their money.
(#32 Multiple PGSI High Male 48 yrs)
Credit Gambling
Seventeen respondents considered online gambling as negative due to the ability to use
credit. This group consisted of four females, was aged between 18 and 72 years and had
slightly more PGSI High respondents (9). This group considered offers of credit by interactive
gambling companies and the ability to gamble using a credit card as negative because this
could potentially contribute to problem gambling. The following quotes highlight the beliefs
of these respondents:
I really do think it’s bad, people using their credit card … because the money can go so
quickly.
(#3 Lottery PGSI Low Female 72 yrs)
I think gambling, being the addictive thing it can be, I don't think credit is a good idea.
(#32 Multiple PGSI High Male 48 yrs)
I don't like that you can gamble online with credit. I don't think this is right. It should not
be permitted. People can get into trouble that way, too quickly.
(#36 Lottery PGSI Low Female 29 yrs)
Negative impact on self and others
Seven respondents reported that they had a negative opinion of interactive gambling
because it had caused a problem for them or a family member. This group consisted of one
female, was aged between 32 and 72 years and had slightly more PGSI respondents (4). The
194
following quotes highlight the negative impact interactive gambling has had on these
respondents:
I think it's a bad thing … I shouldn’t be gambling. I can't even save any money. I don’t
have any money and it affects your social activities as well.
(#10 Sports Betting PGSI High Male 37 yrs)
I’ve put a lot of things in place to not gamble … I cannot gamble online now because I've
black banned myself on most of the major Internet sites that I could find.
(#14 Race Betting PGSI High Male 58 yrs)
Just keep losing money, and then I think ... I can’t go on like this so I had to stop. At that
time I, as I said I lost my full time job. Didn’t have a regular income that’s when it starts
have the pressure on me.
(#45 Lottery PGSI High Male 39 yrs)
General negative opinion
A number of respondents held a negative opinion about gambling in general. These
respondents considered that there was nothing positive about gambling, as highlighted by
the following two quotes:
I think that gambling is terrible I really do. I think it is ruins a lot of lives and a lot of
relationships.
(#15 Race Betting PGSI Low Male 32 yrs)
There is nothing good about gambling. There is a feeling of some sort of excitement,
other than that it is not really good.
(#9 Sports Betting PGSI High Male age not provided)
6.9.3 MIXED OPINIONS
Twenty‐four respondents held mixed opinions about interactive gambling. This group
included only one female, respondents were aged between 24 and 71 years and just over
half (13) were PGSI Low.
Most of these respondents (15) acknowledged that interactive gambling was harmless for
those who could control it but could be problematic for others. Respondents struggled with
this concept that, although gambling was harmless for them, it could be a very dangerous
activity for a group of people who could not control it. The following four quotes highlight
this conflicted opinion about the associated harms and enjoyment of interactive gambling:
I think I bet responsibly and I think it is a good thing. I thought it was harmless, just a fun
pastime. At the same time, I realise not everybody has that level of control so I can
understand why it's an addictive thing and why it can cause lots of harm to lots of
people. I'm a bit conflicted as to what my opinion actually is.
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
195
It’s fine for those who can control it. There's some who can't obviously. I don't think it
should be banned, but there should be more assistance, it should be made to those who
can't control their gambling … As much support as possible for those who have problems
with it.
(#33 Poker PGSI Low Male age not provided)
I know it can be a bad thing and I’ve got a close relative who does have a serious
gambling problem. In that respect, it can be bad but I think if you know what you’re
doing, and you can afford to do what you’re doing, then I don’t see a problem, but that’s
going to be an individual thing.
(#4 Lottery PGSI Low Male 51 yrs)
It does make it easier to gamble so that’s a good thing and a bad thing depending upon
your perspective. There are obviously individuals in society that this will be a bad thing
for as it will escalate their gambling more, spending beyond their means, impacting
upon their day to day finances. But for people who enjoy it and where it doesn’t get out
of control then it is a good thing in terms of making things easier than having to jump in
the car and go down to the (wagering operator) agency. It’s a doubled edged sword – a
good thing and a bad thing.
(#5 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 45 yrs)
6.9.3 BEST ASPECTS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
From the 43 respondents who reported what the ‘best thing’ was about interactive
gambling, the most popular response (28 respondents) was convenience. The second most
popular response was excitement (9). The following quotes highlight the level of excitement
respondents reported from interactive gambling:
The excitement, thrill and if you can forget about your other problems or an escape I
think for a lot of people.
(#16 Poker PGSI High Male 40 yrs)
Trying to pick a winner and seeing the outcome. Sometimes you lose, but it would be like
playing a little game and you get off when you win.
(#17 Race Betting PGSI High Male 31 yrs)
There’s always the reward if you do get lucky, but it’s more about just the
entertainment.
(#44 Casino PGSI Low Male 38 yrs)
6.9.4 WORST ASPECTS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Thirty‐eight respondents reported their views on the ‘worst thing’ about interactive
gambling. Most respondents (21) stated that the worst thing was that it could cause
gambling problems and negative impacts, and many (15) thought it is too convenient. The
following quotes highlight these respondents’ beliefs:
196
I think the worst thing would probably be the people who are compromised and
tempted. People that generally wouldn't gamble unless they went to a casino or
something like that and are tempted by it and use it in a negative way.
(#20 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 26 yrs)
I can see how it would affect other people who have no control and would have easy
access to it.
(#28 Sports Betting PGSI Low Male 52 yrs)
The worst thing about online gambling is easily the convenience of it. Back a few years
ago, smart phones and iPhones, if you wanted to place a sports bet or something, you'd
have to go drive to a (wagering operator) agency. Now, within the space of an advert, I
can lock onto a web site, place a bet for the AFL game I'm watching and be done by the
time the adverts finished.
(#31 Multiple PGSI Low Male 24 yrs)
Additionally, four respondents commented that the ‘worst thing’ about interactive gambling
was when the Internet connection went down:
I suppose the only worse thing is the computer system is not working from either my end
or from their end.
(#19 Race Betting PGSI High Male 52 yrs)
The worst thing about it is if you're going to put a bet on and for whatever reason you
lose power or your lighting, your power goes down and you lose your connectivity.
(#37 Lottery PGSI High Male 68 yrs)
6.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has presented the results of the interviews conducted with 50 interactive
gamblers recruited from respondents to the National Telephone Survey and the National
Online Survey who had gambled online at least once during the previous 12 months. The
sample was selected to include a diverse range of preferred interactive gambling activities
and PGSI scores. None of the sample had received treatment for a gambling problem.
Several participants reported early experiences with gambling, particularly with family
members, for whom gambling was a major part of life. The vast majority had experiences
with land‐based gambling before gambling online, and most had discovered interactive
gambling through advertisements, including by the operator they already gambled with. A
substantial proportion of participants reported increasing their interactive gambling over
time, including gambling on a greater variety of activities due to the ease of access and
increased interest and enjoyment of this activity. Other participants discussed reducing their
online gambling, often due to competing interests and to spend more time and money on
197
more important areas. Of these participants, several had taken actions to block themselves
from interactive gambling due to excessive expenditure.
A sub‐set of participants described themselves as professional gamblers, and reported using
systems and discipline to consistently make money from betting, either themselves or with
assistance from an organised group. Participants were most likely to use a computer to
gamble online, reportedly due to the better software, screen size and security; however,
smartphones were also popular, particularly due to the convenience of this mode of access.
Most participants used multiple devices depending on the gambling activity, products
offered and location, convenience and ease of use.
Convenience and ease of access were the most likely factors to drive use of interactive
gambling. Other important factors included the shorter time taken to place a bet, better
odds, products and information available, and not being around other gamblers.
Advertisements and promotions were widely discussed, although only a minority of
participants described these as positive, allowing individuals to take advantage of these. The
participants were more likely to report that advertisements target vulnerable people,
provide inducements to gamble, are saturated and too prominent, and need to be
controlled.
In relation to gambling problems, a number of participants discussed that using digital
money made it more difficult to control their spending as the money did not seem as ‘real’
as when in a venue and no breaks were needed to deposit funds into accounts, preventing
them from thinking through their actions. Participants also criticised provision of credit by
online operators, which was easy to access and can lead to excessive expenditure, unlike in
land‐based venues when even credit cards cannot be used for gambling. Ease of accessing
interactive gambling sites was also reported to contribute to problems, including when
combined with other contributing factors such as being bored, lonely or isolated and lack of
scrutiny online. Some participants had tried to limit their gambling, although only a small
number had used tools or resources provided by operators for this purpose. Subsequently,
many self‐imposed limits were not successful. The majority of participants considered that
stronger responsible gambling requirements were needed for interactive as compared to
land‐based gambling environments and that online operators currently do not do enough to
protect gamblers from harm. A minority of participants had positive opinions overall about
interactive gambling, largely related to choices, options and the need for personal
responsibility. Those with negative views of this mode discussed the constant availability,
provision of credit and the negative consequences they had experienced. Most participants
had mixed feelings about interactive gambling overall, related to the convenience and
excitement of online gambling, but accompanied by the potential for problems, and being
too convenient.
The next chapter, Chapter Seven, presents results from the interviews with treatment‐
seeking interactive gamblers.
198
CHAPTER SEVEN
INTERVIEWS WITH TREATMENT‐SEEKING INTERACTIVE
GAMBLERS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the results from interviews with 31 treatment‐seeking interactive
gamblers. Chapter Three explains the methodology used for this stage of the study. The
results are presented under the following broad categories:
•
•
Transition from land‐based gambling to interactive gambling;
•
Media preferences for interactive gambling;
•
Advertisements and promotions;
•
Responsible gambling measures;
•
Motivations for interactive gambling;
•
Features of online gambling that contribute to problem gambling;
•
Help‐seeking behaviour; and
Overall opinions of online gambling.
Quotations are tagged with the participant ID number, type of interactive gambling
identified by the participant as causing most problems, gender and age. PGSI scores were
not ascertained for this sample; however, all participants had recently received or were
seeking or receiving treatment for a gambling problem at the time of the interviews.
Operator names, where mentioned, have been de‐identified.
7.2 TRANSITION FROM LAND‐BASED GAMBLING TO INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Participants were asked when they first started gambling and why, the types of gambling
activities they had engaged in since commencing gambling, their first and subsequent
interactive gambling activities, and whether, how and why their gambling had changed over
time.
7.2.1 HISTORY OF GAMBLING
Results are presented below in terms of the interviewees’ early gambling experiences and
commencement of interactive gambling, and changes in gambling participation
199
First gambling activities
For the 31 treatment‐seeking participants, the first experience of gambling was most
commonly on electronic gaming machines (EGMs) (13) or on‐course wagering on horse or
dog racing (10). These first experiences were typically undertaken with family members
(parents, brothers, aunties) (12) or with friends (8). Similar to the group of interactive
gamblers recruited from the general population, a number of respondents grew up in
families where there was high involvement and high early exposure to gambling through
EGMs and racing. Many had family members who frequently gambled at clubs and/or on
lotteries in the company of their children and other family members. Others had family
members who owned race horses or greyhounds, worked at racetracks, or engaged in on‐
course and off‐course wagering at land‐based agencies. For these participants, exposure to
the gambling activities of others was reported to have led to their first experiences of
gambling. Three participants explained:
My father used to bet on the greyhounds and occasionally he would bet on horses. Then
I started to take an interest, just listening to the races. A few friends were also
interested in horse racing. Occasionally we would go to the track and take $4 or $5, or
whatever we had back in those days, and try to make a bit of money. Generally I would
spend Saturdays listening to the horse races, picking out the winners and putting bets
on at the (wagering operator) agency.
(#41 Multiple Male 50yrs)
My mum introduced me to it. I got sick, I suffered from a psychotic breakdown, and my
mum introduced me to it to cheer me up. That was pretty much the advent, 20‐odd
years ago. It’s been a recurring problem on and off since that time.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
I started gambling when it was legal, at 18 years of age. Essentially it started with
friends going to the club and they showed me how to play. Initially it was not much, but
it progressively got more, more and more.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
Experiences of underage gambling
For a large number of treatment‐seeking respondents, early experiences of gambling were
quite pronounced. Eight participants started gambling when they were still underage, some
as teenagers and some as children. A further 10 respondents started gambling as soon as
they turned 18. Respondents from the group who started gambling while still underage said:
When I was about 11 a couple of us went to the (wagering operator) agency and were
putting some really small, like $1 or $2, bets on horses and stuff like that. I just sort of
got a little bit hooked with the potential opportunity to be able to make money really
fast. As if it was a shortcut to get easy money really.
(#17 Multiple Male 25 yrs)
200
I first started gambling at the (wagering operator) agency, probably when I was about
16 or 17. They let me gamble because I was tall and went in. I guess I liked the thrill … I
always looked at phone cards from quite a young age. And it sort of progressed from
there, picking a winner and that sort of thing, the thrill of doing that. That progressed to
going to the (wagering operator) agency from the time I was 18.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
While gambling at home was not a normal family activity for most respondents, gambling
alongside family members was common. For these individuals their first gambling
experiences were at a relatively young age, when compared with the other participants in
the treatment‐seeking sample. Respondents exposed to gambling within the family
explained:
I started gambling when I was about five or six mostly on the horses and (wagering
operator) because my parents had racing dogs and horses. I was basically getting
pushed around the track from a very early age. And I was really ingrained in the
gambling system from a very early age.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
I went to a recreation club with a friend’s family and his mum put Keno on and he won
$44. We would’ve been about 16 or something. We were really stoked and excited and I
thought that was awesome that he just got $44 and it was that easy. I think that is what
sticks in my mind.
(#17 Multiple Male 25 yrs)
I grew up in a family of gamblers and was having family members post bets for me from
about 11 or 12. I was at the (wagering operator) agency at least three to five times a
week. I became a horse racing fanatic and wanted to be a jockey, and then I was too
big, and just continued to follow the sport and indulge.
(#23 Race Betting Male 45 yrs)
I was about six or so and I was at the Royal Show with my auntie and I’m on the coin
machines. You drop your coin and then it pushes all these coins down. I got a lot of coins
and I was sitting there playing it all day but by the end of the day I had spent all the
money. It was lots of fun and ever since then I just really kind of enjoyed it. A couple of
times after that I used to go to the horse races with my auntie and she’d put a couple of
bets on for me and I would say the number. And every now and then they’d win, every
now and then they wouldn’t.
(#36 Race Betting Male 18 yrs)
First experiences of interactive gambling
Of the 31 treatment‐seeking interviewees, only three stated that their first experience of
gambling was with interactive gambling. These individuals, one female and two males, were
aged 18, 28 and 29 years respectively. They explained why they began gambling online:
201
I heard about gambling online from a friend. She was winning quite a lot of money and I
thought I might try it out. Just online casinos, like pokies or games and stuff like that.
That was about five months ago and it’s pretty much been every day since.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
I’m massively into sports and a mate of mine said you can win money betting online on
sports. He’s probably the guy that introduced me to gambling.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
It would have been when I was 18, as soon as I was legally allowed to gamble. First
would have been online poker, and I would have spent a lot of time playing that, maybe
a couple hours a day till I ran out of money.
(#27 Race Betting Male 29 yrs)
Interviewees also discussed how they first found out about interactive gambling. Nine
respondents were introduced to interactive gambling by a friend or family member, while
five respondents found out about interactive gambling through advertisements on
television or at venues. For example, respondents explained:
I think it was an ad I saw on the cricket. I opened an account, I was betting mostly on
sports at the time. I think almost all, exclusively sports. I kind of went in and out with
them, I didn’t continue that. I dropped off, I think I was about 22, 23 maybe. Then
dropped off for a while, until I came to use (wagering operator).com, which I use most of
the time now.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
Somebody told me, one of the guys I bet with, he goes a bit online. He had a (wagering
operator) account and he knows how to do online and all this and even played from the
UK to Australia so that’s how it started. I looked for a while, maybe a couple of weeks,
and then started putting bets on and it went from there – racing and online poker and
they cost me a lot of money.
(#32 Sports Betting Male 43 yrs)
I had mates that told me that they had the online gambling accounts and they’ve won
lots and lost lots and just lots of fun, then I wanted to too. Pretty much as soon as I
turned 18, I went online and signed up to (wagering operator). On the first day I was
betting and I was winning and winning and winning. By the end of the night I had about
$300 from $10. I was very happy and I ended up putting it all on one bet, the last bet of
the night, and losing it all. Ever since then, I go back every week on to (wagering
operator).
(#36 Race Betting Male 18 yrs)
About one‐fifth of respondents found out about interactive gambling by ‘accident’. That is,
rather than specifically seeking out interactive gambling activities, they came across
202
gambling opportunities while using the Internet for other purposes. One participant
indicated:
It was sort of by accident that I came across it. I was working on my computer and it
said, ‘Play poker online.’ And I sort of just had a look at it and I put $50 out of my credit
card onto it right there and then. And I won $200, but I didn't know how to get the
money back out and I ended up spending it on roulette, online.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
7.2.2 PARTICIPATION IN INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Increasing interactive gambling over time
All respondents in the treatment‐seeking group reported that their gambling had increased
significantly since they first began gambling online. The reasons reported were varied. A
number of individuals stated that their increasing participation was improved technology
and increasing options and accessibility, and the ability to get perceptibly better odds.
Notably, 13 of these respondents stated that their interactive gambling participation was
still increasing despite seeking treatment for their gambling problems.
Some respondents attributed this increase in their interactive gambling to the introduction
of new types of bets, receiving bonuses and promotions, to acquiring a more portable
device (smartphone, tablet) and increased credit card limits. For example:
Behaviour wise with the advent of flexi betting, which is the single most dangerous
innovation by the (wagering operator) in the last 20 years, you don’t have to deposit a
lot of money to achieve the same addictive behaviours.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
(My gambling) has increased quite a lot. When I first started off I didn't think gambling
online was all that good, but now that I've been a member for a couple of months, I get
promotions and bonuses. It just makes it more interesting, I guess. It makes me want to
gamble more.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
It was over the computer originally, three to four times a week maybe, and then I got an
iPhone, and then you could obviously get online a lot easier and then, yes, it got a bit
too heavy.
(#32 Sports Betting Male 43 yrs)
Yeah, it changed when I got a tablet. I got a credit card with a big limit and not long
after I opened multiple betting accounts and that’s where it all started. I’m embarrassed
to say, but it wasn’t long before I’d be at work doing it, I’d be at home doing it, and as
long as my wife didn’t see me I’d be doing it. I’ve even done it driving a car. It was that
easy. Yeah, it was constant. That’s the problem with this bloody thing.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
203
A few participants implied that their increasing levels of gambling were related not only to
increasing accessibility but also to isolation and loneliness, and a need to fill time with
meaningful activity:
It’s the machines that I was introduced to, and then I gravitated towards the online
stuff. Basically it was the accessibility. I got sick and I was at home for a while. It was
there and so that’s what I did.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
It was the sort of thing that you'd do when you got home from other forms of gambling.
You would go, ‘Oh, well, there's always that one’. It was there 24/7. You could watch the
races online, everything was available. It was tied to social aspirations and filling in
time. You feel like you're out with people. You're not, really.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
I have been unemployed since the beginning of September, end of August and since I
resigned from work I took on gambling as a way of making money. That was with the
pokies. If I couldn’t get to the pokies, then I’d go online and gamble online.
(#11 EGMs Female 44 yrs)
About one‐quarter of respondents talked about the way perceived ‘rules’ imposed for
playing on gambling websites ‘get you playing more’. This allowed site operators to
influence and guide respondents’ choices – the way they played, the amount of money they
bet, their level engagement and their withdrawal of winnings. The following account is
typical:
At online casinos, they offer you free things, like free spins or bonuses, like 100% if you
put in 20, they give you 20, and so you’ve got 40 to play with. The good thing was, back
then, I’d only put in $20, $30 and it would last, seriously, it would last days. But then
there were all these rules to get you playing more. You’d win, but you’d have to play
through X amount of times. For example, $1,000, you’d have to play that right through
before you get any winnings from that. It really got me sucked in and before I knew it, it
was increasing and increasing.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
About one‐third of respondents spoke about a gradual (but not complete) progression away
from land‐based gambling and towards increased interactive gambling activity. For example,
the following respondent commented:
I still go to the (wagering operator) agency to watch a lot of the racing. I probably don’t
bet as much there now. I am definitely betting though. I would say almost 80% of my
gambling is done online, whereas previously, when I first discovered the net, it was
probably only 5% or 10% online. Now it’s almost exclusively online. Probably, yeah, at
least 80% to 90% of my gambling is done online and its definitely got a lot worse.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
204
Decreasing participation over time
Eight interviewees discussed their decreasing participation in interactive gambling over
time. The reasons given most often related to receiving treatment and/or their own efforts
to decrease their interactive gambling activity. One respondent noted he no longer gambled
at all; however the remaining respondents reported that they still gambled to some degree.
For many participants, decreasing participation was linked to greater ‘control’ and self
‘responsibility’, as the following respondents observed:
I contacted Gambler’s Help so I’m speaking to somebody. Weeks ago, my gambling was
getting out of control. It’s something that I wanted to pretty much quit cold turkey. I
haven’t touched anything for six weeks now. I haven’t gambled at all. That’s very
different to what it was two or three months ago.
(#14 Race Betting Male age not provided)
I was using so much money … My habits have now changed. I don’t do any online
gambling, or very, very rarely. And yes, I’ve still been battling ever since. It’s not like I’ve
given up or anything, but I am transparent now. Yes, I’ve totally changed it around in
the last two years. It’s still really hard and I still stuff up, but nowhere near spending like
$3,000 a week on credit cards online.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
I lost a lot of money and now I still gamble, but I’ll probably only gamble about $100 a
week. And no online any more. No. I’ve set the computer. My gambling is under control.
I’m taking counselling right now. Yes, now it’s under control.
(#32 Sports Betting Male 43 yrs)
Varying participation over time
Rather than increasing or decreasing over time, seven respondents suggested that their
gambling patterns were more complex and variable. For example, the following participant,
in devising strategies to curb his gambling, was decreasing one form of gambling but not
decreasing others. Other respondents reported cycles of behaviour and gambling activity
that fluctuated over time, with some reporting gambling binges:
Well, the horses aren’t too bad for me. I don’t get overwhelmed like I do when I’m
playing the pokies. If I play the pokies and I have a win, I can never really walk out of it
unless it’s a significant win. I’m trying to avoid the pokies. With the horses it’s much
more controllable. You can put $10 in, say, and get it up to $200. It’s much more
realistic. At the moment, I do more online on the horses.
(#34 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
I got pretty bad at one point. I was spending a fair bit, pretty much all my money on
either online (wagering operator) or casinos or sports betting … At the moment I don’t
gamble as much. I still put some money in that I can’t really afford. I still do online sports
betting, but I stay away from the online casinos.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
205
I tend to go through cycles where I try to stay away from it and then there’s factors that
lure me back to it. And when I hit it, I hit it quite hard. And then I want to stay on it so I’ll
just keep reloading it up. Then there’ll be outside influences, the wife or whatever. I’ll
stop for a while and then I’ll go back to it.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
7.3 MEDIA PREFERENCES FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
The 31 participants were asked about their media preferences (devices used) to access
online gambling, what influences this choice, and whether the device used varies for
different types of interactive gambling. Results are discussed below.
7.3.1 PREFERRED DEVICES FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
The interviewees were asked about their preferred devices for accessing interactive
gambling: smartphone, tablet, computer, laptop or digital TV. The most popular devices
used were a computer (20 participants), followed by a smartphone (14 participants). Three
participants accessed interactive gambling via a digital TV and two via a tablet. (Several
participants used multiple devices, hence these numbers do not total 31).
Computer only
Amongst the 20 respondents who reported using a computer to gamble online, 12 reported
that this was the only media device used to gamble online. Of the 12 computer‐only users,
six were female and six were male.
Always just the computer. I’ve got a computer at home; I’ve got a computer at work. I’m
around the computer a lot, so it’s accessible. And it’s got a bigger screen than, say, a
tablet or a mobile.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
The only way I can get online is through the computer. I do not have a smart phone or
whatever.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50yrs)
Affordability. I have a computer. Responsibility as well, because I know that if I were to
get a mobile phone that caters for online stuff, it would really cause major problems. It’s
just because I’m on limited income; realistically, I had to make choices in life. One of the
choices was not to have a car or a mobile, and to have a home phone and a computer
instead.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
Smartphone only
Of the 14 respondents who reported using their smartphone to gamble online, only two
reported that this was the only device used. The two smartphone‐only users were both
male and bet on sports and the races. As the following respondent notes, the ease and
206
convenience of smartphones are a valued reason for their use to access interactive
gambling:
The phone is easier, it has the app and that doesn’t cost you anything. It’s just live
streaming ‐ it's a better experience. It's portable; you can walk around anywhere around
the house, or anywhere at the shops. You can be anywhere and you can place a bet, and
you can listen to the race live, or you can watch it live from your phone. It's better than
the Internet because over the net, they'll charge you money. I use my phone anywhere I
like. If I'm at the shops and I have money in my account, then yeah, I'll place a bet.
(#27 Race Betting Male 29 yrs)
Laptop only
Amongst the 7 respondents who reported using their laptop to gamble online, only one
reported that this was the only media device they used to gamble online. This respondent
explained:
I just use the laptop. Just easy access, I suppose. And also, there’s a bit more information
with the horses on the computer. You get more form.
(#34 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
Number of devices used to gamble online
Respondents varied in the number of devices used to access interactive gambling. 15
respondents used just one device. Of these, 12 used a computer, one used a laptop and two
used a smartphone (as discussed above). Twelve respondents used two devices to access
interactive gambling. The most popular combination was a smartphone and computer,
which was used by six participants, followed by smartphone and laptop (3), smartphone and
digital television (1), computer and digital television (1) and laptop and digital television (1).
Two respondents used three devices to gamble online. One used a smartphone, computer
and tablet, and the other used a smartphone, laptop and tablet.
207
7.3.2 FACTORS THAT DETERMINE CHOICE OF DEVICE
Use of different devices was determined by two main factors – the ease of use of the device
with the type of gambling activity being undertaken, and technology and applications.
Gambling activity and ease of use determine device
Ease of use for particular types of gambling, combined with convenience, accessibility and
speed, determined the choice of device for many participants. As the following respondents
asserted:
It’s ease of access. I’ll use the computer or the TV, whatever goes faster. Sometimes I
put them both on, whatever gives me access a bit faster.
(#14 Race Betting Male age not provided)
My computer (laptop) or phone. Sometimes the games or the site are too big for my
phone, so mainly on the laptop.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
Just accessibility, whatever’s quicker and easier. Just like if you were going to watch a
movie, obviously your laptop is going to be better to watch it on than on your phone. In
saying that, if I didn’t have a laptop around, I’d just use my phone. If I had both, I’d
probably opt for the laptop, just depending. It’s just all about what’s easy.
(#17 Multiple Male 25 yrs)
Well, it was just what was available. If I'm at home or near a computer, I use that. If I'm
out with a mobile phone, I use that. It's really just what’s around.
(#6 Multiple Male 27 yrs)
Probably the speed.
(#23 Race Betting Male 45 yrs)
Technology and applications determines device
For most participants, new technologies and applications facilitated transitions and uptake
of interactive gambling opportunities. The following respondents highlighted how access to
new technologies has determined the device used:
I never used to gamble online until I got this new phone. With the iPhone, it's just so
convenient and easy. The fact that it's very user‐friendly.
(#31 Multiple Male 34 yrs)
The last couple of months there have been times I’ve just gambled at home. You don’t
even need to have Foxtel and have Sky Racing now. It’s on your laptop. You can stream
the live commentary of the races and have your sports bet account up. You can listen to
208
the races live and you can just bet with your credit card. For someone like me, there’s
every chance that I could just gamble a big chunk of that before I get up and have
breakfast just because it’s so easy to do. It is just too easy. It’s really easy. It takes all of
the effort out of it.
(#17 Multiple Male 25 yrs)
7.4 MOTIVATIONS FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
This section presents findings on what influences people to engage in interactive gambling.
Respondents reported a range of factors that influenced their decision to gamble online
rather than, or as well as, at land‐based gambling venues. Key amongst these was the
convenience and ease of access of gambling online, although better odds and more
gambling options were also important for several participants. Other interviewees noted
privacy and not being around other gamblers as influencing their choice to gamble online.
7.4.1 CONVENIENCE AND EASE OF ACCESS
The majority of treatment‐seeking participants (27) reported that convenience and/or ease
of access were key reasons they played online. This group were of varied age and included
both males and females. For these respondents, the convenience of gambling from their
own home at varied hours of the day and night were key advantages. The following
responses highlight the role of convenience in influencing decisions to gamble online:
The convenience of it for sure. You can do it anywhere at any time. It’s very, very
accessible. I would do most of it, it would be night time. The thing is I don’t have to get
out and go out to do it. The online casinos you don’t have to go anywhere. You can just
sit at home and play the pokies or play poker or whatever. It’s just really, really
convenient.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
The convenience. Not having to leave my house. It’s almost a lack of reality too, you can
log onto your bank account and chuck another $3,000 into your credit card account and
bet again. It’s all just so easy. Whereas if it was a Saturday, I would have to go to an
ATM, then a pub (wagering operator). That physicality.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
Three respondents highlighted specific physical constraints that hampered their ability to
access land‐based venues. They both noted how online gambling overcame these kinds of
physical constraints:
My disability, really. I’ve had four operations in the last two years that have prevented
me from working or going out, so it’s the convenience. It comes to you.
(#23 Race Betting Male 45 yrs)
209
Accessibility, because at 2 or 3 in the morning I don’t have a car so I can’t catch public
transport. Mainly accessibility and the ease of it. Being able to do things from your own
home.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
7.4.2 BETTER ODDS/MORE GAMBLING OPTIONS/MORE INFORMATION
Twelve respondents reported that interactive gambling provided a greater range of
gambling options and/or better gambling odds. This group included both males and females
who were engaged in a range of gambling options including race betting, sports betting,
pokies and other games. Indeed, this group reported being quite serious about accessing
information, calculating odds, and accessing potentially better gambling outcomes online
than were available through land‐based gambling.
There are a lot more options. Land‐based gambling, you don't have many games that
you can be playing. It's mainly just pokies or (of‐course betting) or stuff like that,
whereas online you get all sorts of different games, and it’s easy to pick from.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
Probably that you can compare all your different odds. The one that I’m betting with
now you can make a selection of four or five different states and I call it ‘tote betting’.
Well at the (wagering operator), the NSW (wagering operator), and the Queensland
(wagering operator), Victoria, they are all separate. The odds are different on each of
them and this one that I have you can pick which state you want to bet. I can bet on the
Queensland (wagering operator) if I want, if the odds are better, rather than just having
to place a bet at the pub or at the (wagering operator) agency. I get to choose which are
best odds so that is a good thing I think.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50yrs)
More so the odds that are on offer. I usually take it quite seriously and I try to limit my
betting somewhat to the horses I actually like. I do like to have a look at different odds. I
find that’s good because I can generally see how the market’s going to go. So online
you’ve got access to all these different operators and you can choose different odds for
your selections.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
It’s probably just the variety online. I think a lot of the sports betting has more options
online, more than the (wagering operator) agency. That is one of the main reasons. You
can bet on sports and actually watch sports at the same time. And also being able to
access information much easier.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
As well as the view that interactive gambling websites provided additional information,
three respondents stated they could also get advantageous assistance with gambling that
210
would increase their opportunities to win. One respondent explained he gambled online
because:
I've got direct contact with Internet gambling groups and they set it up … you pay a
membership, put up the money, they do all the gambling, they show you all the
paraphernalia – how it works and what you do … I don't have to really be involved in the
gambling itself. What I do is I give them some money into a bank account and they do
all the work … It’s like a scheme, and I'm not that good at it … but that's what sucked me
in. I'm not a gambler but I needed to make some money.
(#24 Sports Betting Male 62 yrs)
7.4.3 NOT BEING SURROUNDED BY OTHER GAMBLERS
Three other respondents suggested that playing online involved less effort, avoided
distractions from other gamblers and allowed them to avoid associating with, and therefore
being identified with, other people who gamble. For example, one respondent discussed the
negative assumptions held of people who gamble at land‐based venues, particularly off‐
course betting agencies, and implied that gambling online allowed for alternate, more
glamorised and individually controlled identities, that avoided conventional stereotypes:
Less hassle. Well, basically not having to get in the car and drive to the venue and
manually put your bets on. Basically, you can either go down and stand around in the
bloody old (wagering operator) agency with a bunch of other ugly‐looking blokes, or you
can stay at home in your lounge room and sit on your iPhone there and sip a pina colada
while you're doing it.
(#31 Multiple Male 34 yrs)
… there is no one harassing me. I can do it without the interruptions and things.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50yrs)
I prefer online mainly because this takes away being around people. A gambler betting
when there's a big crowd or a lot of people talking, it’s just no good. By being around
others it sort of cramps my style.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
7.4.4 PRIVACY
Six other respondents noted that interactive gambling was more appealing than land‐based
gambling because of the privacy it afforded:
Well, you don’t have to leave your home. You have the privacy of your own home; you
have 24/7 access; you can transfer your money quickly; you don’t have a lot of
restriction; you can bet what you like, and play an enormous variety of games.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
211
I do not have to get dressed up and get in the car and drive off down the road. I can just
sit here in my t‐shirt and shorts and be in front of the computer. No one is watching …
(#41 Race Betting Male 50yrs)
Just being able to be in my own place and do my own thing by myself.
(#36 Race Betting Male 18 yrs)
Three respondents confided that interactive gambling also allowed them to retain a level of
secrecy about their activities. One respondent explained:
… Also I don’t need to tell my wife that I'm going out for a couple hours. I'm at home,
you know. And my parents won't think that I'm always out and I have a problem. They
see me at home. It’s all okay … My dad doesn’t know I'm still doing it online. So they
think it’s all okay.
(#27 Race Betting Male 29 yrs)
7.5 ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS
Participants discussed advertisements and promotions associated with interactive gambling,
identifying a similar range of examples as the interactive gamblers recruited from the
general population. While a few participants held positive views of advertisements and
promotions for interactive gambling, the vast majority viewed these activities negatively.
7.5.1 POSITIVE OPINIONS OF ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONS
A minority of interviewees had some positive comments about gambling promotions, saying
they were interesting, enabled them to win extra money and to access free tournaments,
for example:
I think it's excellent. The promotions that people give me. I get quite a lot and it’s
bonuses when you deposit money into your gaming web site. You get bonuses and all
that.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
The promotions are generally not too bad I suppose. You get access to free tournaments
and you get first deposit bonus which means you can win extra money, but the annoying
thing is though is obviously they don't want you to just take the money and run which is
fair enough, but you have play the tables to win that free money. I think that's pretty
cool. Some of the promotions are pretty good. I haven't really run into a bad one yet.
(#6 Multiple Male 27 yrs)
A few other participants considered that conducting gambling advertisements and
promotions is a legitimate part of doing business and so had no objection to them. For
example, two said:
212
They are okay. They need to drum up business somehow and I suppose that is their way
of doing it, so it’s not much different than any other way. People offer you little ‘carrots’
to come and buy their products.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
Like I said, they’re a business. Companies do promotions all the time to make money and
they advertise so I guess they’re entitled to do that. It’s sort of like can you say, ‘You can
have this website. You can have this business, but then you can’t promote it.’ It doesn’t
make sense because you have to promote businesses.
(#17 Multiple Male 25 yrs)
7.5.2 NEGATIVE OPINIONS OF ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONS
Concerns about the nature and extent of gambling advertising and promotion were widely
voiced by respondents. Five main themes featured amongst negative opinions held about
the advertising and promotion of interactive gambling: that it provides inducements to
gamble, that it attracts vulnerable people to gambling, that the conditions of some
promotions are unfair, that it has reached saturation point, and that it requires more
control.
Provides inducements to gamble
Numerous respondents discussed how advertisements and promotions acted as
inducements and triggers to gamble, which was perceived as particularly problematic for
those trying to curtail their gambling. The following respondents highlighted the role of
advertising and promotions as inducements to gamble which can attract new gamblers and
existing gamblers and trigger gambling in people trying to control their gambling:
They sort of integrate themselves into television broadcasts. I think it's maybe a little bit
deceptive, and I think that it's promoting a generation of gamblers.
(#31 Multiple Male 34 yrs)
Stop promoting it. They know people are going to play. Australians are a culture of
gamblers … I think the promotion isn’t to get new people. I think the promotion is to
draw in the old people … Draw them back.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
I don’t like it, I don’t like it. I think there's too many ads on TV, that’s always suggesting
(wagering operator) or whatever betting agency … I dislike it because it's influencing
you, giving you the idea to gamble … reminding you to gamble, whereas if you didn’t
have that then you might have just forgotten about it, and you wouldn’t have bothered.
(#27 Race Betting Male 29 yrs)
Well I had some great experiences and really good wins … but then over a period of time
… when I’ve then had subsequent wins, they then told me that bonuses would no longer
be offered. So I think you get rolled into it. You’re quite prepared to take that risk
213
because you’re using some of their money as well. But then in the end, it’s just all your
money.
(#23 Race Betting Male 45 yrs)
… when I first got onto the online casinos back in 2008 I actually went from casino to
casino because they said you got an hour with free money and you keep your winnings. I
think that’s what dragged me onto them to start with. I still get emails from (wagering
operator) … where they’re saying, ‘Deposit $20 and we’ll match it,’ or ‘We’ll give you
free bets.’ That kind of stuff. The promotions definitely grab your attention. If you
haven’t gambled for a while and then you get an email saying a free $20 bet, it takes me
back to their site and then it gets you back in.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
Well, the free bets that they use. I get them all the time … I got one today, ‘If you put in
500 we’ll give you 500.’ … They lock you in and that’s just the deals that they offer. None
of the deals are real. I realise that, but still if you got the urge you go, ‘Aw, I’ll do it
anyway.’ … I do think that, excuse the language, but they’re bullshit, every one of them.
Basically they’re designed for you to put your money in and then get you on the hook …
what it does to you is it puts you in the vortex. You’re in the system then and you’re
going to start getting all the offers … I’m talking more for people who don’t bet much
now. All of a sudden you’ve opened an account … and it’s a trick. … Once you’ve opened
one you think, ‘Oh, well the Melbourne Cups coming up. I’ve got that account opened
now I’ll just do it through that.’
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
And they actually try to encourage you because if you've had a bit of a downer, you'll
get a phone call and they will say, ‘Oh, we've had a bit of a bad week last week didn't
we?’ That's pretty bloody obvious … I've got this company right now that's ringing me
saying, ‘put more money in’.
(#24 Sports Betting Male 62 yrs)
It actually was really hard to cancel my (wagering operator) account. They kept sending
me letters to encourage me to keep going. It was really hard to cancel that. It should
have been easier.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
214
Attracts vulnerable people to gambling
Several preceding quotes reveal how vulnerable some participants are to becoming enticed
back into interactive gambling even though they were seeking help for a gambling problem.
Additionally, some respondents referred specifically to the advertisements and promotions
targeting vulnerable people, including children and people with gambling problems. For
example:
I don’t like the instant promotions ... I don’t like the fact that it continually encourages
you to come back for more. That’s basically it … They know that the majority of the
people that have the revenue for them are the problem gamblers.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
They target the vulnerable …
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
There’s too much promotion. Too much promotion on TV and too much promotion. Even
the kids get into it more often. I think now kids are getting attacked with all this. That’s
always bad.
(#14 Race Betting Male age not provided)
Unfair conditions
Some interviewees clearly considered that the conditions attached to promotions were
unfair. Previous quotes indicated that some participants considered interactive gambling
promotions to be ‘deceptive’ and ‘insidious’ and a way to ‘suck you in’. The following quotes
provide some examples of conditions of promotions that participants considered to be
unfair, including the difficulties and delays in withdrawing winnings and the requirements to
play through credits won in a promotion multiple times:
They offer you bonuses – ‘Deposit $100, and we'll give you $1,000.’ But they're not really
ever giving you money … it’s subject to conditions of play though. So, if you've put in
$100 and they're giving you an extra free $100 on top of that … you think you've been
winning, and you try and withdraw it, you can’t even withdraw your initial $100,
because they're saying you've got play through requirements based on that bonus that
they've given you. It’s very difficult to get money and it would take days and days. But
you know what? – I never, not once, cashed in. Out of all that money I spent, I never
cashed in. It’s much more difficult, so you end up using it because it takes days.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
They’re noxious. They are pervasive and frankly they’re volatile. They’re also shrouded in
layers upon layers of conditions. One example I would give is many of the casinos,
certainly the one that I like to gamble with most frequently online, one of the conditions
is that any credits received in a promotion has to be played through 27 times before you
can actually withdraw it. If they give you $10 you would have to somehow win $270 and
bet it all before any of it could be considered your profit and then you would have to win
215
again. They’re incredibly full of weasel words and at the end of the day they don’t really
contain anything more than an attractive incentive, because they’re certainly not going
to make you any money. But they are very attractive.
(#49, EGMs, Male, 28 yrs)
Advertising saturation
Concerns about the amount of gambling advertising and promotion were widely voiced. The
following respondent comments were typical of those who viewed gambling advertising as
saturated, appearing on social media sites, emails, pop‐ups on Internet sites, and during
televised sports matches. Objections related to the sheer volume of these messages, that
they are ruining sport, and that these treatment‐seeking gamblers find them manipulative
and enticing:
I’m still even now bombarded by a lot of online casino sites just with emails and even on
Facebook I noticed you click onto something and then it redirects you and a gambling
thing pops up. It’s a worry when there’s such public social networks that are indirectly
advertising gambling. I think that’s a worry.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
You look up something, anything, and up pops a window for a bet or you get pop‐ups. It
even happened today. I was going to go to a friend’s birthday tonight and he’s Maltese
so I wanted to find out how to say happy birthday in Maltese so I could spell it correctly
and up pops gambling stuff and I went, no. The temptation’s always there.
(#32 Sports Betting Male 43 yrs)
Well, it's certainly getting more and more advanced. They advertise the shit right on TV.
It always seems to be scheduled and advertised when you're watching sports or
something like that. Any form of gambling, the more you put it out there in people's
faces, the more it's going to appeal to those that are weak.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
I’m just finding that to be horrible too. If we’re talking about Australian media
promotions, I find them, especially regarding football and the odds and bookmakers and
all that, I find them absolutely disgusting. I think it’s ruining sports. That’s my opinion.
Promotion regarding the Internet, online gambling, my email is bombarded with offers
from casinos, all that luring me back. I continually get, ‘Come back. We’ll give you $50,’
and I find it actually quite sickening. It’s very manipulative.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
More control needed over advertising and promotions
Some respondents made recommendations on the advertising and promotion of interactive
gambling. As the following respondents said:
216
You can’t believe them. The conversation starts with, ‘How would you like to be earning
more money?’ They gloss it over, make it look really good and there doesn’t seem to be
any control over what they say, and they need it.
(#24 Sports Betting Male 62 yrs)
It’s very dangerous, because there is a lot of these promotions, ‘Deposit $100 and we'll
give you $50 free bet,’ it's a way of getting you in. The latest (wagering operator)
commercials on TV, the guy backs a winner, he's celebrating in slow motion, as if he's on
top of the world. All of the trumping like that, then if you wait five minutes generally you
get a problem gambling information. You will see quite clearly two out of three problem
gamblers ring counselling services. That says to me: ‘what about the other one third?’ If
you combine that with these ads that are on, it’s not hard to work out there's a lot of
issues here that require real investigation; not just this haphazard way that things are
going now.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
7.6 FEATURES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING THAT CONTRIBUTE TO GAMBLING
PROBLEMS
Participants were asked about the features of interactive gambling that might contribute to
gambling problems. Prominent themes comprised being able to gamble on credit, use of
digital money, ease of accessing interactive gambling, the wide range of gambling options
available online, provision of inducements to gamble, the speed of interactive gambling and
lack of limits, and the absence of any scrutiny. Less prominent themes were the influence of
consuming alcohol while gambling online and loss of reality during interactive gambling
sessions. Many of these themes were linked, such as use of digital money, credit gambling
and loss of reality, and easy access and credit availability. Participants were also asked how
they tried to ensure that they controlled their interactive gambling, with results presented
later in this section.
7.6.1 CREDIT GAMBLING
Nine participants raised credit betting as potentially contributing to gambling problems,
mainly because accessing and using credit were so easy. Some typical comments were:
... it's just very easy; if you're alone you can look up your bank and you've got no money
in your account you can just deposit $100 from your credit card.
(#1 Race betting Male age not provided)
Well, I think effectively it's a lot easier putting your credit card or PayPal in, depositing
the money, and then betting a big amount ... (compared to putting ) note after note
after note after note into the machine.
(#6 Multiple Male 27 yrs)
217
It’s just how easy it is. You can just so easily input money because it’s all electronic. It’s
not like you have to go to the bank, withdraw the money and then pay with the cash. It’s
put this on my credit card and bang, bang, bang. It’s just so easy and very simple.
(#8 Multiple Male age not provided)
Some interviewees gave examples of their own difficulties arising from gambling online with
credit; for some, these problems appeared to arise quickly after access to higher limit credit
cards:
I got a credit card with a big limit in about February of this year and not long after, call it
March, I opened multiple betting accounts and that’s where it all started.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
I would always spend the maximum that you could take out of your account, which I
think is $1,000, at the pokies … at the clubs. Definitely online has been the huge culprit.
It’s really been only in the last year where I’ve got myself into debt over it. When I say
that, I’ve spent all the money from the house proceeds, however, but it’s still my money.
Then in the last year I’ve gotten a $30,000 credit card debt and $15,000 of that was in
one hit online.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
As a result of both of my forms of gambling (land‐based and online), I found it was
easier to just keep swapping money across on the Internet with the credit cards for the
online gambling.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
Online was just really bad and it cost us $35,000. That’s how much he (partner) had to
pay off that I’d spent on credit cards.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
7.6.2 DIGITAL MONEY
Related to the ability to gamble online on credit, some participants also commented that
not using real cash could also be problematic as it removed the reality of using real money,
for example:
It’s almost a lack of reality too … you log onto your bank and then you go to your cash
account. Then you chuck another $3,000 into your credit card account so that you can
then go back to your gambling account and bet again. It’s all just so easy ... Lack of
reality. I think the big thing for me is that, you know, I’ve had sessions where I’ve lost
$10,000. There’s no way I’d go into a land‐based venue with $10,000 in my pocket and
lose it.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
218
7.6.3 LOWER PERCEIVED ‘VALUE’ OF ONLINE WINNINGS
The use of digital money for interactive gambling also appeared to reduce the perceived
value of winnings, as explained by this respondent:
I guess because it doesn’t really seem like it’s real money. Even if you’ve won something
you don’t really look at it like … because it’s not going to be there today, you know what
I mean? It’s sort of like play money. You don’t really see it. I think that’s one of the worst
features.
(#40, EGMs, Female, 37 yrs)
7.6.4 EASY ACCESSIBILITY
Numerous respondents argued that ease of access was a key feature that could encourage
them to gamble more than they intended to online. This easy accessibility appeared
particularly difficult for many participants to resist. The following respondents explained:
Online is just so much more accessible, so much more accessible. You don’t have to go
out. You can just sit there and you can play ... If you do have an addiction or a problem
with it, that it’s just so accessible. If you’re that way inclined, it’s like the devil sitting at
your table. I just find it really insidious.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
Having whatever issues or whatever I have, because online gambling is so easy and
convenient. It makes it I guess a lot more accessible to be able to deal with whatever
issues I’ve got, whether it be escapism, boredom, whatnot. Not having to leave the
house, it’s just so easy to do.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
It’s just so convenient and easy. I think at the end of the day like we all probably get
tempted to have a punt or we get tempted to do something naughty or whatever, but
your conscience or what is right hopefully wins over that. It’s like as soon as you think
that it is something bad, if it’s really easy for you to do it, quick and like before you can
change your mind, that specific problem’s going to go up.
(#17 Multiple Male 25 yrs)
One respondent explicitly noted that the combination of ease of access to interactive
gambling and having money sitting in a gambling account is very tempting:
The problem is you haven't got any money. You don't have any in your account at the
bank anymore ... but there is money in the (betting) account; no matter what time of
day, you feel like having a bet, you get up and have a bet ... If there's money in the
account, you're always tempted to have a bet ... It's always in the back of your mind
that you have money there to have a bet with.
(#1 Race betting Male age not provided)
219
7.6.5 WIDE RANGE OF GAMBLING OPTIONS
Some participants commented on the wide range of gambling options available to bet on
which, combined with easy access, was enticing. For example, four respondents said:
Probably the fact that you can bet on so many different things. You have got football
and all sorts of sports betting now. Most people would be interested in something to bet
on whether it is car racing or cricket or whatever. They will find something that some
person is interested in and that is probably how they will get in and get them hooked.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
Too many lollies in the shop, just too many choices, too many games.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
The fact is, they've got hundreds of tables running all simultaneously. They've got table
ranges from micro‐stacks of $2 buy‐ins to $20,000 buy‐ins.
(#56 Poker Male 27 yrs)
There's no end to it, like the first race is at 12 o'clock and you might still have money in
there at 6 o'clock when all the gallops are over and the dogs start and ... then there's
English racing and South African racing starts up and you might need to just keep going
... it's just too easy. You can do that everyday if you wanted to ... It's just easy access.
You don't have to leave home.
(#1 Race betting Male age not provided)
7.6.6 INDUCEMENTS TO GAMBLE
The wide range of easily accessible options were suggested to be further embellished
through active promotion and incentives provided by interactive gambling operators. Some
indicative quotes are below:
The promotions. That’d be one of the main ones because as I said before, you get an
email from whoever, even the casino I still get the emails saying put $10 in your
account; that drags you back to them.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
The fact that they give you figures that you're gullible enough to believe. When they tell
you you can have $1,600 in six months. They seem be able to give you all this proof. The
fact that it's tax free ... and the specials and bonuses.
(#24 Sports Betting Male 62 yrs)
Its too easy, yes. It usually just pops up, like if you're on the Internet, doing your online
calls or something and it just pops up in your face and it catches your eye and you go
straight onto it.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
... the special offers. Have a free bet, have a $200 voucher for another bet.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
220
7.6.7 SPEED AND LACK OF LIMITS
The previous issues noted were further compounded by speed and the lack of limitations
that interactive gambling provides. Respondents noted:
Speed. The speed with which you can bet and win or lose is unbelievable. Surely, there
could a cap off point or slowing down the pace.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
It takes your money quicker ... In a very short space and amount of time you can lose a
lot of money ... The limits were high and it was just dreadful. You could play $25 a line
on the Internet.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
There's no limit, there's no limit to how much you can gamble. You can start betting and
you might place 20 bets down within a minute, and that will be losing bets, and you
might have lost $100.
(#27 Race Betting Male 29 yrs)
It angers me. I know that I am ultimately responsible for my own actions, but it does
anger me that the banks, or the websites, or somebody online allow you to spend so
much. That they don’t place controls over it. They don’t monitor it. They’re just happy
for you to spend your money at will because their primary aim is to make lots of money.
Online really is a breeding ground for problem gamblers. It’s an awful thing and I’d love
to see these sites shut down. It’s not good for the soul or for your wallet.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
7.6.8 ABSENCE OF SCRUTINY
Several respondents noted that interactive gambling provided a situation where you could
play for long periods of time without scrutiny. This ability to gamble in private appeared to
lower some participants’ inhibitions, and some commented that no one was monitoring
your gambling behaviour when it was done online:
It’s much easier online. There’s nobody around to see how much money you’re putting
in. If someone was watching, checking on you it would be different.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50yrs)
It makes you not really face up to it … You don’t have to physically walk or see people, or
sit at a machine; or you don’t have to leave your own home. It’s a dreadful thing and
one I hope I never get sucked into again.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
If you're out at a venue, you're being watched. In the comfort of your own home ...
there's no one judging you.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
221
The online site is probably a more dangerous form of betting, especially technology you
pretty much can really operate yourself through the computers, the TV, home TV, you've
got your own venue within your reach. Which is probably the easiest place to start up;
that's when I got myself into real trouble. You can direct debit money straight into your
account without walking into a venue, so the whole process of … contacting the bank,
contacting the person that can assist you or make the call to say, ‘Hang on, you're in
trouble’, that goes out the window ... There's really no mechanisms for control and yes,
as I said, it's a problem.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
7.6.9 LOSS OF REALITY
Some respondents talked about the sense of ‘play’ or ‘fantasy’ involved when gambling
online and five suggested there could be an erosion of perceived reality. The following
respondents summed up these ideas:
Well I can sit there on the couch and bet my lungs out; unfortunately you can just
completely lose yourself in the whole process.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
Losing touch with reality. You get caught up in the game that you are playing or the
situation, you lose that sense of time. It goes fuzzy. What’s real, what’s not. And then
you don’t realise how much you lose. You don’t realise its real. And then you do.
(#31 Multiple Male 34 yrs)
I think that it can become patterned into you or the flow of it becomes mesmerising.
(#49, EGMs, Male, 28 yrs)
7.6.10 INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL
Two respondents also noted that alcohol could also have a detrimental effect by
encouraging them to gamble more than they intended to, as the following respondents
explained:
I find that if you have a few drinks you get a bit wayward and spend money on things
and that could be a bit dangerous.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
I’ve tried to stop drinking while I’m gambling. I guess that’s how it starts with drinking
and having a punt. I realised that’s not a good thing ‐ you don’t know what you’re
doing. You have to try and stay sober and actually think about what I’m doing.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
222
7.6.11 CONTROL STRATEGIES USED
Very mixed responses were given when participants were asked about any strategies they
had used to try to control their gambling during interactive gambling sessions, and their
responses seemed to depend on where participants were in the process of addressing their
gambling problem. At the peak of their gambling, participants appeared to use no strategies
or did not find the strategies they used to be very effective. However, several participants
reported more success with strategies used since seeking help for their gambling problem,
including suspending or closing online gambling accounts, limiting the amount kept in these
accounts, using the limit‐setting facility on some online gambling sites, installing blocking
software, limiting the size and frequency of bets, and self‐discipline and willpower.
No strategies
Participants who appeared not to have cut down on their interactive gambling and those
discussing their interactive gambling before they had sought help reported not having any
strategies to limit their gambling. For example, some said:
Well, I guess I haven't really used any strategies. That's how I ended up where I am.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
I’ve been out of control. I haven’t had limits so I haven’t used any.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
I don’t. I’d just spend every cent I had.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
Well I haven’t really, it’s just been a free‐for‐all, going for it.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
Limited success with strategies
Other respondents had attempted using various strategies to control their interactive
gambling, but with limited success, as reported below:
I’ll withdraw when I’m 20 bucks ahead. I’ll withdraw when I’m 50 bucks ahead or I won’t
put so much money in, but in the moment, no way. I can’t do it.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
I guess I never really thought about the strategies going into it. I thought, ‘Well, I’ll only
spend this much.’ I never, ever did ... (My) intentions at the start to only play for a
certain amount of time. That never worked either.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
We put a filter on the computer; I found ways around the filter and things like that. So I
was always testing and pushing it to see how much I could break it so that I could use it.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
223
Maybe to deposit into my account in small increments as opposed to a lump sum. That
sort of encourages me not to bet as much on the individual bet. (Interviewer: Has that
been useful to you?) Not really.
(#31 Multiple Male 34 yrs)
Universally I find the best thing to do is consider what I’ve won or what I’ve lost at that
point in time and consider what that amount of money could do for me outside of
gambling. It could pay X bill, or it could buy Y item or I could put it towards a holiday.
That’s probably what I do. In terms of keeping on track, I’ll go in with the intent of
saying I’ll spend $50 and of course I won’t. I’ll spend more than that. Beyond that, I’m
not so sure I have any other measures ... I would say one in three times it’s useful.
(#49, EGMs, Male, 28 yrs)
The following respondent had tried to set a limit through a gambling website but found that
it was too easy to keep increasing that limit:
Useful but ... it was so easy to reset. You just say in fact I want to increase it and then
the next time I go, can I increase the limit and I go, yes let’s increase. Can I increase
again? Increase it and then it’s no questions asked. It’s just like, bang, bang, bang, here
you go, keep increasing it. I don’t think they care about the player at all.
(#8 Multiple Male age not provided)
More success with strategies
Other respondents were having more success with various strategies to try to limit their
interactive gambling, although some had only recently initiated these at the time of their
interview. For example, some respondents had suspended their interactive gambling
accounts or used the limit‐setting features available on some sites:
I suspended my account, so that’s the only strategy, I think ... it's been about a week or
so.
(#9 Race Betting Male 26 yrs)
I got rid of my accounts and got my friend to put bets on for me so I can’t control that
account only they can.
(#29 Sports Betting Male 30 yrs)
The only thing I’ve started to do ... on one site I’ve set myself a monthly limit. That was
very, very effective ... and I haven’t gambled since and that was a couple of months ago.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
One respondent used blocking software, as explained here:
... eventually with the help that I was getting and my partner, we managed to lock
everything up and now I’m protected and I haven’t been gambling for the last three
months now.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
224
Others limited the amount of money in interactive gambling accounts, for example:
I basically just put a certain amount of money in. If I win, I take it out, I try keep that
same amount of money in.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
When I reach a certain amount I will withdraw it. If I have $300 or $400 in there, I may
be tempted to go a bit over the top, whereas the average bet for me would be anything
from $5 to $20, or something like that. If I had a lot of money in there, I would be
tempted to bet $50 or $100 or something like that.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
Other participants had set self‐imposed limits their interactive gambling expenditure:
$100 a week. That’s through my counsellor and in the last two or three weeks I haven’t
even hit my limit.
(#32 Sports Betting Male 43 yrs)
One time I spent lots of money on gambling and these days I just restrict myself to $10
or $20 a week. I used to just go all out and hope I have my money left.
(#36 Race Betting Male 18 yrs)
I’ve gone back to low betting, 1 cent betting ... basically I’ve tried to reduce the amount
of time I go per week, the amount of time I put into it, and the amount of money.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
Others relied on self‐discipline and willpower to curtail their gambling:
Generally, it's just that discipline for me ... every time I sit down and play I take notes, I
keep a log book in which I enter profits and losses so I can keep track of when I'm taking
too many hits, playing too many hands, when I'm just generally on tilt which is playing
by emotion and that sort of thing. I keep that all written and up to date ... It hasn't
stopped me from making a mistake or two but like I said, I've learned from those
mistakes and I move on.
(#56 Poker Male 27 yrs)
Pretty much cold turkey. When I had a real bad problem, yes, I’d say cold turkey.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
7.7 RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING MEASURES
This section presents findings on the participants’ views on the responsible gambling
measures available online compared to land‐based venues. They discussed whether
interactive gambling requires more, the same or fewer responsible gambling measures than
225
land‐based gambling, and additional measures they felt should be in place in the interactive
gambling environment.
7.7.1 RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING REQUIREMENTS IN THE INTERACTIVE VS LAND‐BASED
ENVIRONMENT
Twenty‐one respondents considered that interactive gambling requires more responsible
gambling measures than land‐based gambling. The reasons given for this were mainly
related to the lack of current controls or limits on what people can spend (including on
credit) combined with easy accessibility, which meant that people could lose a great deal of
money (15 respondents). One or two participants each mentioned other reasons, including
that the provision of interactive gambling was out of control, loss of reality when using
digital money, the private nature of interactive gambling with no monitoring, because
interactive gambling is very addictive, and because of the promotions that entice people to
gamble online.
Three respondents felt that interactive gambling required the same level of responsible
gambling measures as land‐based gambling, because controlling one’s gambling was an
individual responsibility, and because people could gamble as much in a land‐based venue
as they could online. These respondents said:
It should be obvious that it's up to the individual to make his own mind up about this.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
I would say the same. No more or less. Really it’s up to the individual, I think. They say
you cannot stop someone from going to the tavern and you can just as easily lose all
your money there than spend it on the computer.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50yrs)
I would say the same. Just because it’s just as easy, I think, when you’re at a (wagering
operator) agency or something to get money out and waste that as well. Gambling
responsibly is about taking responsibility for yourself and understanding that you’ve
only got a certain amount of money to put into gambling for that day. That is something
that doesn’t change online.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
One participant considered fewer responsible gambling measures were needed in the online
environment because this respondent found it effective to ask her bank to put a stop to her
money transfers whereas, in comparison, ATMs in land‐based venues were more accessible.
The remaining respondents did not provide clear responses, with most of these participants
unsure of what was meant by responsible gambling measures.
226
7.7.2 RECOMMENDED RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING MEASURES FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
While three respondents did believe interactive sites were doing enough to protect players
from harm, 21 respondents argued that not enough is done to protect players from harm.
This group believed that interactive gambling providers and governments could do more to
protect players from harm. The most widely advocated responsible gambling measure was
for limits to be placed (12 respondents), followed by generic and dynamic warning signs (9),
limits on promotions (3), improved self‐exclusion options and information (3), and better
identification checks (2). Prohibiting reverse withdrawals and being able to block interactive
gambling sites from a smartphone were mentioned by one participant each. Several
participants suggested more than one responsible gambling measure. Additionally, some
respondents raised questions over security and integrity of sites. These themes are
discussed further below.
Limits
Twelve respondents advocated for limits on interactive gambling, including on bets,
deposits, account balances, the number of transactions per day, and time spent gambling.
Indicative quotes were:
I think there should be a maximum injection per day ... it'll just stop people putting up
big amounts and losing a big amount in one day.
(#6 Multiple Male 27 yrs)
Time limits and money limits ... Definitely. If there’s an epidemic and no one’s containing
it, but they’re the ones feeding the epidemic, then they need to put a leash on it.
(#11 EGMs Female 44 yrs)
I just think there should be certain limits set, that a player can lose in a certain period of
time, before they’re allowed to gamble at that venue again; you know, $500 within a
24‐hour period. If you lose it, you’re locked out for another 24 hours.
(#23 Race Betting Male 45 yrs)
They should have a low monetary restriction ... that’s not $3,000 ... they know $3,000 a
day is a problem. If you're wealthy and you want to do it, apply for a special lift on the
restriction, so that they can financially check you out to make sure that you can afford
what you're doing. So, there needs to be checks in place ... They can do heaps. They
don’t care about people, their lives; they don’t – not an iota.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
Related to limits, one respondent suggested the following:
... maybe some sort of a running tally of how much it is that they’ve deposited in that
session so that they don’t get almost a bill shock.
(#49 EGMs Male 28 yrs)
227
Another suggested being able to set your own limits:
Perhaps if you could set yourself a limit. If they had something where you could say,
‘Look, I don’t want to bet any more than $20 a day’, and that’s your limit.
(#34 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
Warning signs
Five participants suggested prominent warning signs on interactive gambling websites and
information about gambling help, for example:
All I see is a little sort of advert on some of their sites saying, ‘If you have a gambling
problem you should ring 1‐800 ...’. I think there should be major flashing signs on their
sites ... on all their websites, no matter page you go onto, not just the homepage.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
Maybe have warnings that gambling’s addictive.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
I think they should always provide contact, advice for gambling help services or
something like that. I think that they should also provide some sort of counselling sort of
a warning sign.
(#8 Multiple Male age not provided)
Dynamic warning signs
Four respondents suggested dynamic warning signs when a customer makes a bet or
displays problem gambling behaviours, such as:
Perhaps they could have a question before you place a bet, do you really want to place
this bet? Do you have enough money, especially if it’s someone that they know is losing
lots and lots of money. That might be a good idea, before you have to place a bet, a
little pop up box comes up and says do you want to place this bet? Is this the right thing
to do? That might be a good thing to come up, to snap people into reality.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
The bookies can advise customers of their betting patterns, like say, ‘Look, you’ve put on
a lot of bets in the last half‐an‐hour, how do you feel? Are you okay?’ ... Yeah, interrupt
it. ‘Are you sure you're not betting over your head? Is your head in the right place? Are
you betting sensibly?’ Just to get them out of that state that they're in.
(#27 Race Betting Male 29 yrs)
... obviously they monitor your betting or how many times, the bet types you are
making. They know whether you’re depositing more than usual. I think there should be
some sort of, you know, even if it’s just a simple, ‘you know we’ve noticed that your
228
playing activities have increased lately, maybe you should think about visiting this site
and reading (information about) how to control your gambling.
(#8 Multiple Male age not provided)
Well, some sort of better sort of checking system. I don't know if there's some sort of
way of finding out a person has issues or something, but they're not interested in that.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
Limits on promotions
Three interviewees advocated for tighter restrictions on interactive gambling promotions as
a responsible gambling measure. For example:
I think on gambling websites; one, there should be no more special offers because I think
that it does induce new players who wouldn’t even have done it before. I’ve seen it
happen actually.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
What can they do to be more responsible? ... just stop promoting it. Stop promoting it.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
Less vivacious promotions.
(#49, EGMs, Male, 28 yrs)
Self‐exclusion
One participant suggested that more flexible and gambler‐initiated self‐exclusion periods
would be beneficial, another suggested that information about self‐exclusion should be
more prominent on gambling websites, while a third implied that there should be some
checks when a person ends an exclusion:
I think that the self‐exclusion programs are very good and they definitely keep them in
place. For example, at the moment I've signed up for a 30 day one just to get a break
from the game because it was getting too much for me, just the stress. I needed some
time away so that's great but they don't allow option ... they allow 12‐24 hours and then
one week time out, one month time out, but they should really allow the player an
option to chose exactly how many days and how many hours
(#56 Poker Male 27 yrs)
Like some of them have put a self‐exclusion thing on there but it’s not popping out at
you. You’ve got to go find it. You’ve got to actually look for it. In saying that, why would
they? It’s like a shop selling stuff and wanting you not to buy stuff. It goes against what
their goal is, and that’s to make money.
(#17 Multiple Male 25 yrs)
229
Probably about three years ago I emailed (wagering operator) and told them to ban me
from the website because I wanted to stay away for a while. Not two months later I
emailed them again and said, ‘Can you let me use a slot again?’ and they did that
without asking any questions ...
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
Better identification checks
Two respondents felt that there should be better identification checks when opening an
account, with one reason being to prevent underage gambling:
I personally believe there's got to be some security measures to prevent kids and minors
accessing it. That’s an absolute given, from what I've seen there.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
Maybe they have to see the documents, first up, before you sign up. Yes, I guess, it
would be better, rather than waiting until you’ve won before they request them. Yes,
they probably should request them straight‐away to sign up.
(#40, EGMs, Female, 37 yrs)
Withdrawals
One interviewee explained that stopping the ability to reverse withdrawals should be
implemented:
Things like you can reverse withdrawal, whereas I think that should be not an option,
because it’s so easy to dip into the money that you fund. What it means is that you
basically have to withdraw all the money and then it just takes even longer for the
money to go into your account, and then you end up losing it anyway ... I think stopping
reverse withdrawals would be a start.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
Blocking from phone
Another respondent advocated for the ability to block interactive gambling websites from
his phone:
I don't think just a little disclaimer down at the bottom saying that if you're experiencing
problems with your gambling, to ring this number, I don't think that's enough. I don't
know, I think there could be other options, such as maybe being able to have the
capacity to block it from your phone or suspend it for a period of time.
(#31 Multiple Male 34 yrs)
230
Security and integrity concerns
Some interviewees questioned the legitimacy, security and integrity of some interactive
gambling websites and gambling activities, although they did not identify measures to
protect consumers against this. Some examples given were:
I worry about giving my bank details away. You get a bit worried that some of them are
a scam and they'll just rip you off and take all your money.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
They’re really good at what they’re saying. I always think, like, ‘are they cheating’ or
‘are they lying about what’s going on?’ That’s the only thing I have a problem with,
whether they are honest. Everything else, I really enjoy.
(#36 Race Betting Male 18 yrs)
I know that horse racing is certainly rigged but two (football) teams playing negates one
another. One of them is going to win, but I don't know really know who’s playing, in
America say. Some of these companies make it all look really radiant and real. They turn
out to be from another country. One of companies was from Costa Rica and they just
disappeared with the money. It just appears that there's no control over them.
(#24 Sports Betting Male 62 yrs)
7.8 HELP‐SEEKING BEHAVIOUR OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
The 31 treatment‐seeking participants were asked about several aspects of seeking help for
their gambling problem, including the types of help they had used, their experiences, any
challenges with this help‐seeking and what might work best for interactive gamblers.
7.8.1 HELP USED TO MANAGE GAMBLING PROBLEMS
Most of the 31 treatment‐seeking respondents (26) had received beneficial support to help
manage their gambling problems, while the remainder considered the help they had
received to be of limited benefit. A wide range of sources were reported including
counselling (10), Gamblers Anonymous (7) Gambling Helpline (6), problem gambling
websites (6), doctors (4), family and friends (6), and self‐help measures (9). Most
participants had accessed multiple sources, although it was also evident that some were
more likely to access a range of professional services, while others were more likely to
utilise less formal support, such as family and friends, online websites and self‐help. All but
one respondent reported experiences that were helpful, at least to some degree. Helpful
features of support were noted to revolve around financial management, sharing of
experiences and addressing behaviours. Some respondents’ experiences of using
professional, non‐professional and self‐help are presented below.
231
Professional help
Twelve respondents had accessed counselling or gambling help services and found these
strategies helpful in managing their gambling.
The following participants commented on telephone and face‐to‐face counselling:
I rang the gambling helpline. I rang them in a very upset and agitated state about six
weeks ago and that was a Sunday. They said, ‘Well, you probably need to speak to a
counsellor,’ who surprisingly rang me on Monday evening. Every Monday since I’ve had
an hour conversation with that counsellor and that’s been really helpful.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
Counselling was making me accountable. Being the sole parent and never really having
any money struggles before, I just was never accountable to anyone for anything. It
worked for three months and then I stopped seeing him because we thought everything
was okay. And then it wasn’t. You need to see somebody on a regular basis.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
Non‐professional help
Other participants had accessed various interactive sites which provided information and
support, some through forums and blogs that provided interaction with people who were
perceived to understand. As the following participant argued:
The best strategy is talking to someone who has been through it. Going to blokes that
have been involved in problems themselves … Every one of them said they understand
getting heavily involved.
(#24 Sports Betting Male 62 yrs)
I suppose talking with others who might do it. Forums on the Internet as well, people
discussing. I normally don’t participate in forums but I like reading them.
(#49, EGMs, Male, 28 yrs)
Well, I have actually looked online and got a lot of information online from other people
who were also addicted to it before, and things like that. Self‐help online; just calling
you guys and saying, ‘Yes, I’ll partake in research’, because if there’s something out
there that one day can help me understand or make me walk away from it for good …
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
Another two participants had been to Gamblers’ Anonymous, but were rather non‐
committal about whether it had helped them in controlling their gambling:
I did a Gamblers Anonymous Meeting a couple of times. The Gamblers Anonymous thing
was fun, I thought it was pretty whacky.
(#43, EGMs, Male, 32 yrs)
232
I think support may be important and watching other people that have been where I am
… that can help me. They rang me, Gamblers Anonymous, and one guy rang because
you have to leave a message. He rang me and chatted with me which was really nice. He
talked to me about the meeting. A day later another person rang just to make sure that
other person had called and she talked to me about her issues and all that stuff too.
That was really good. I found it really good. Good people. She had a horrible life. She
was in control of her situation right now, but she made that time to help other people
and that’s quite inspiring.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
Six respondents discussed involving family members or friends to monitor their gambling
activity, listen to their confessions, try to deter them from gambling and/or take control of
their finances. Some participants explained:
I've talked to a couple of friends that have experienced it. Yes. They try and help me,
they just talk me out of it, try to tell me why it's not good. I do find a lot of help through
my friends.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
That’s the only way – transparency with your partner. Have somebody else control your
money. I had no access to anything, only money that he could give me. And if he gave
me money, he wants to know what it’s for.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
I give all my money now to my parents … Taking away access to money is the most
important one.
(#6 Multiple Male 27 yrs)
I have someone that has that has access to my Internet banking and all that, someone
else that I trust, that has full access to my accounts and they can view what I spend my
money on, so especially with large sums of money disappearing. They open the account
and would say, ‘What's this 300 bucks you took out of the account?’ I might just tell
them to piss off, or I trust them to hold me accountable.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
However, another participant did not seem at all appreciative of having his finances
managed by his parents:
I didn't ask for the help when my family took my rights away; that was sort of against
my will. I'm pretty angry about that. It's still in effect today. Receiving an allowance at
the age of 27 is appalling. These people are so incompetent, they nearly evicted me
twice from my house because these idiots couldn't manage my finance properly. It's
been good because it's helped me save up a decent amount of money but that's beside
the point.
(#56 Poker Male 27 yrs)
233
Self‐help
Other respondents noted using self‐help strategies that limited their spending, such as
setting time and/or money limits and disposing of credit cards, while others used blocking
software. One participant tried to avoid drinking when gambling.
Well, getting rid of all my credit cards. I didn't have much choice in that because they
were maxed, but actually cutting up the cards and cancelling the account … Now I can't
get a loan for a couple of years. Its on my credit file.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
Other than suspending my account, that’s about it … I hope suspending accounts is the
most effective. When you haven't got any cash to bet with, then I think that’s a very
effective method.
(#9 Race Betting Male 26 yrs)
We put a filter on the computer … and I haven’t been gambling for the last three months
now.
(#23 Race Betting Male 45 yrs)
Basically the main key strategy is to try and stay sober and actually think about what
I’m doing.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
Another respondent provided a detailed response that included a strategy to remind him
about the negative consequences of his gambling and also returning to physical activity:
I think one thing that has worked for me … I haven’t gambled for a while, is that firstly,
the day that prompted me to call the gambling helpline, I wrote down exactly how I felt
and what I feel. It’s probably … I don’t know, 300 words and it’s basically depicting the
absolute shame, disgust in myself, self‐loathing, problems that it caused me and it’s
small enough that I keep it with me at all times now. That’s the first thing.
The other thing, probably more so that I worked through with the counsellor, was that I
was quite into physical activity years ago, but I’ve let that go. I’d go and have a game of
tennis, go for a long walk, go and do those sort of things which … before it’d be like, ‘No,
that would get in the way of my gambling.’ Even going to do them now I find it
incredibly hard to do, but once I’ve done them I feel good.
We’ve come to a strategy whereby hard things to do ultimately make you feel good. The
easy things to do like online gambling ultimately make you feel terrible. It’s that
hard/easy thing … if I feel it, I sit down. I give myself 10 minutes and I go hard/easy and I
really think about it. So hard things is putting on a pair of shorts and t‐shirt and going
for a run. That’s hard. The easy thing is getting my iPad and gambling. Both have
different outcomes. One makes you feel good and the other one eventually sucks you
up. That’s how I’ve been dealing with it.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
234
Some respondents used self‐help because of shame and a concern about the confidentiality
of services, as this participant shared:
I suppose shame, fear of the process and anonymity. I’m afraid that as anonymous as
these centres are, these programs are, and these institutions are, they’re not
anonymous. Even if they have anonymous in their name, people talk. I guess I consider
my gambling to be so deeply personal and private that I’d rather others not know about
it, which is dangerous unto itself and to an extent that shame might encourage me to do
it less, but I’ve found that the only thing that’s actually been helpful to me is internal
fortitude. Abstinence is the only thing that I find to be effective. I recently as in only a
fortnight ago … I cancelled all of my accounts with online casinos and that’s what I’m
practising now; simply abstinence.
(#49, EGMs, Male, 28 yrs)
7.8.2 CHALLENGES IN SEEKING HELP FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING PROBLEMS
Fifteen respondents reported a diverse range of challenges when seeking and finding good
help for their gambling problems. The waiting periods required before being able to access
counselling were noted to be a major problem by several respondents. For example, the
following respondents explained:
I just assumed when I rang (the help service) that I would be able to see somebody
within a week but it was a bit of a wait. I was very anxious about having to wait for
three weeks to see somebody. Then after that three weeks they mixed up my
appointment and they said, ‘Oh no, we can’t book you in for another three weeks’. It
was awful. I was really hanging out to see somebody.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
Oh, it’s a real challenge just to find help. Like if you ring up the gambling hotline, you've
got to wait weeks to get in. They really need them to be available every day. And these
people, they will just sort of see you once a fortnight, and then they disappear and they
go somewhere else. There’s no continuity, consistency about the counsellors available.
The programs are short‐lived. Sometimes they've closed down or there is nobody there
to help, unless you want to pay for it. And most compulsive gamblers are broke … And
seeing somebody once a week for an hour, it’s nothing. It does nothing. You need to
have somebody every day for an hour. You really need intensive therapy when you're
that bad, and you need help every day.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
I’ve been trying to schedule a meeting because I’m working full‐time. I’m not available
nine to five and I can’t seem to catch the counsel outside of hours. I think that’s probably
the one problem that I’ve come across. I have to juggle a week’s work to make sure that
I keep getting the advice.
(#8 Multiple Male age not provided)
235
Others appeared to have had unhelpful experiences with a telephone and online help
services, as explained below:
The guy at the gambling hotline wasn’t very helpful and I went to one of those online
sites to get help gambling. But when I tried to use it on my phone, for some reason I
couldn’t access it on my phone. I guess that’s a challenge, not being able to access the
help with my mobile since that’s what I use to gamble.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
On the weekend I rang up a gambling hotline because I spent money I shouldn’t have. I
sold furniture and I spent the money gambling and I didn’t have enough to pay this bill
that I’d committed to and I knew I was in trouble. I knew it so I rung a gambling hotline
number. They just said, ‘Well, here’s another number. Ring them on Monday.’ That was
it. I told them my situation because it’s shameful having to tell people that you gamble
and that you’ve made a really huge mistake and this is what’s happened and stuff like
that. For me personally there’s a shame involved.
(#11 EGMs Female 44 yrs)
Another respondent noted the challenges of being understood by some professionals, and
also especially by those closest to them such as family and friends:
Challenges to get the doctor to help you. I don’t think they take you seriously or want to
help you.
(#27 Race Betting Male 29 yrs)
That’s been a problem within itself, accessing the support networks around or the help
available, being burnt by the gambler’s help services. I really wouldn’t trust them, to be
honest … I’ve not been in a good way, and partly it’s about being quite burnt by workers
who’ve treated me with disrespect.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
Yeah, my partner doesn’t understand it. I actually love the whole horse racing industry, I
love everything about it. I love the theatre, I love doing a form, and she just doesn’t
understand that. One of the challenges is just being understood. Most people are fine if
you have a bet on the Melbourne Cup, but any other time it’s a sinister activity, you
know.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
7.8.3 THE MOST EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING PROBLEMS
Most of the 31 treatment‐seeking respondents believed that the effective treatment of
interactive gambling would entail some method of control, involving personal control over
gambling behaviour and/or imposed controls. Imposed controls were discussed earlier in
this chapter in relation to responsible gambling measures that respondents recommended
for interactive gambling websites. Participants who believed that people needed to enact
control over their own behaviours (12) talked about a range of strategies, that for some
236
could be reinforced through counselling (7) or reinforcement from family and friends (5).
Respondents suggested:
You need a whole combination. You need a counsellor. If you can afford it, you need a
shrink as well. You need to have a minimum of three bookings planned. Use two
different psychologists if you have to, to get in to see them, because you've got to wait
for so long to get an appointment that you need to stagger them. Have somebody else
control your money. It’s very important. You need that done first. And you need to block
yourself off from gambling sites by purchasing the Gamble Lock program, and you need
to discuss it every day, read books every day, and constantly be mindful. Maybe cold
turkey. And I guess talking to someone can help, but it comes down to the individual. I
think counselling to go with it would be the best.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
Total abstinence and counselling.
(#23 Race Betting Male 45 yrs)
Another respondent suggested online forums and apps where people could share their
similar experiences would also help:
… anonymous support lines. I don’t know if there’s any specifically related to online
gambling … Maybe even an extension of that, forums or apps or some other digital
platform that allows people to share their experience … (But) the most effective
treatment would definitely be not to treat the gambling itself; it would be to treat the
underlying impulsivity, the addictive nature of the person. I think the most effective
would be one on one therapy.
(#49, EGMs, Male, 28 yrs)
Numerous respondents noted the role of counselling and gamblers’ help services in
providing beneficial help, including broader services such as financial and legal advisors.
However, some of these also noted the distance between help services and their online
gambling activity and noted a need for online help services and resources linked to gambling
websites. Ten respondents reported that more information about problem gambling should
be provided on gambling websites (as discussed earlier in this chapter), but also that links to
immediate help should be available through the gambling websites:
If the sites actually advertised help like Gamblers Anonymous more prominently I think
that would help. I think that would help someone in the moment of losing a lot of money
and regretting it. That can be an impetus to seek help. … If they can get them at that
moment and talk to them at that moment, it would help.
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
I guess if there was some sort of person that you could deal with directly … If there was
some sort of government body where they had someone they put you in touch with.
They could have someone for everything. You go and see this person and they support
you in relinquishing all of your accounts and your decision to ban or whatever. I know
237
gambling counsellors and that assist you, but I mean to do all the paperwork and
getting you up online and all that. That's not really their role as such. It can be quite
involved if you've got a heap of accounts.
(#39 Sports Betting Male 26 yrs)
Other respondents suggested measures people could implement themselves to curtail their
access to interactive gambling, including removing access to the Internet or to interactive
gambling websites. One participant described software he was considering to block access
to gambling sites, but also noted the costs of such a program may put it out of the reach of
some people experiencing gambling problems:
Somebody told me about called Gamblock, which is a program, an American‐based
program, which you pay a subscription, and it actually blocks any access to any
gambling site. We haven’t actually done it yet, but we're looking at it.
(#6 Multiple Male 27 yrs)
You’d have to disconnect from the Internet if you had a real problem. It’s the only way
because it’s always in your mind.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
You've got to put these barriers in place. Change access to the Internet. Stop it.
Incorporate banning from accounts. You come up with a registrar of online gambling
product removers. Then you go through the whole lock stock and barrel. You do it
properly; you say, ‘Right. John Smith, aged such and such, address such and such is now
banned’. By controlling the finances, the accessibility, the availability and having some
sort of buddy system, a person overseeing at least. By closing the loopholes you will get
somewhere.
(#3 Race Betting Male 50 yrs)
Remove the access. It's a combination, because you're always going to have the urge. If
you remove the things that can turn that urge to a binge, then it would help. You can go
to meetings and counselling and stuff, and that helps, but when you're in that moment,
if you just don’t have access, then you can't gamble. Gambling in and of itself is its own
monster. It just happens to have tentacles in a lot of different ways. It’s all a problem.
Online has been around for many years now, but now it’s the fact that you’ve got it on
your phone, its everywhere. I think in the next 20 years we’ll be looking back and going,
‘We’ve got a bad problem.’ People with good intentions will be thinking, ‘What are we
thinking,’ but the gambling industry will be laughing their heads off because they’ll be
making so much more money.
(#6 Multiple Male 27 yrs)
7.9 OVERALL OPINIONS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
The treatment‐seeking respondents were asked to give their opinions about interactive
gambling, whether positive or negative. They were also asked to share their views on the
238
best and worst aspects of interactive gambling. These findings are outlined in turn in the
following sections where it is clear that negative views of online gambling predominate.
7.9.1 POSITIVE OPINIONS
Four treatment‐seeking respondents asserted a positive view of interactive gambling, albeit
with recognition that there could be problems for some people. These positive opinions
related predominantly to the enjoyment, convenience, and benefits potentially available
from online gambling, as expressed by these participants:
I think it's great fun. I think more people should get into it. A lot of people think it's just a
scam. Yes, they usually just think they'll get ripped off, but I've tried it myself and it
works. A lot of my friends have tried it and it works for them too. Money wise, it's great.
You do make real money. I think more people should try it.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
It’s good ... I just thought the site was fair ... like the odds were, it seemed random
rather than like it was fixed or anything. It wasn’t against the computer … it’s all
players, you know what I mean?
(#43, EGMs, Male, 32 yrs)
My opinion is, it depends. Like I said, when I play properly I have gotten to a point where
I can turn a profit so I'm happy about that but unfortunately I've got a long way to go. I
think it's a good thing. A lot of people think that online poker is rigged but I think they
are just idiots. I've noticed that it's only the people who lose who claim that they're
being cheated ... I generally have a good time so I really enjoy online gambling.
(#56 Poker Male 27 yrs)
7.9.2 NEGATIVE OPINIONS
Twenty of the 31 respondents held a negative opinion of interactive gambling. This group
contained both males and females across all age groups. Respondents in this treatment‐
seeking group expressed a far higher proportion of negative opinions than was evident in
the group of interactive gamblers recruited from the general population. These views
appeared to be related to their own experiences of gambling problems, which was
especially evident in the typically strong emotional responses to this question.
Respondents who described having a negative opinion of interactive gambling focused
especially on the negative problems it has caused in their lives and those they knew. Online
gambling was variously described by respondents in this group as ‘dangerous’(5), ‘terrible’
(3), ‘bad’ (2), ‘insidious’, ‘evil’, ‘disgraceful’, ‘negative’, ‘shit’, ‘toxic’, ‘vile and disgusting’.
Others made comments like, ‘I hate it’ (2), ‘it sucks’, ‘it’s weak’, and ‘it’s crap and really,
really dangerous’.
239
Respondents argued that interactive gambling was too easily accessible, there were few
controls, it was poorly monitored and regulated, and there was limited awareness of the
negative impacts and how to minimise them. Responses from this group included:
It’s terrible. My opinion of it from a gambler’s point of view is that it’s far too easy to
spend too much money. There are no controls in place. You can spend as much money
as you like. For example, I was able to spend the limit of my credit card, $15,000, in one
sitting. There’s no one to monitor that, and if you have a drink or aren’t feeling right. ...
It’s very easy for someone with a problem to get into trouble. Now I know you can put
your self‐limitations in place, but its too late now and it’s terrible that people have to
find these things out in hindsight.
(#12 Multiple Female age not provided)
I think it’s terrible. I just think it’s too easy and people don’t realise how easy it is to lose
so much money. I also think that it’s pushed in your face a lot by the media these days
and that is unnecessary.
(#21 Multiple Male 28 yrs)
I think online gambling is insidious and it’s horribly dangerous. If there was no human
condition, if we were all just robots, online gambling would be fine, but unfortunately
people have tendencies, like myself, to not know when to quit. And they can easily get
caught up in it. For myself and the stories that I’ve read about other people, I dislike
online gambling. Having said that, as a form of entertainment, it’s very convenient and
it’s very well done, but that’s all part of the lure isn’t it?
(#5 Poker Male 39 yrs)
After going through what I went through and being in the head place I am now, not
wanting to touch it, I view it as bad. I think it’s probably more of a problem than people
think. It is the easy access. Anybody can get on it. It’s because anyone can play and get
themselves into trouble. There’re no regulations around it.
(#8 Multiple Male age not provided)
7.9.3 MIXED OPINIONS
Seven respondents reported mixed opinions about interactive gambling. Some, like the
following two respondents, suggested there were good and bad aspects, both from a
personal perspective and from a business perspective.
I do enjoy it personally, but I’d say it’s not interesting or an idea for everybody. I don’t
think it’s a good idea at all for somebody like me.
(#40, EGMs, Female, 37 yrs)
I work in a money oriented business industry and I understand that everybody is out
there to make a buck. So I don’t know. I don’t think that the businesses are to blame if
you know what I mean. It’s a tricky one. It’s one of those topics. But it sucks that it is
240
that easy for people to gamble themselves into trouble. But yes, I do think it is a pretty
negative industry.
(#17 Multiple Male 25 yrs)
Most of this group talked about how interactive gambling had initially been positive,
creating enjoyment and facilitating easy access to gambling. However, they also
acknowledged how this had more recently led to the wide range of gambling problems they
experienced including financial problems, isolation, self‐esteem issues, communication and
relationship difficulties. These effects shaped negative conceptualisations of online
gambling. The following responses reveal evolving views of interactive gambling:
I think there’s a lot of fun initially. Ultimately it’s bad. With all the banners that surround
you, and all the offers, all the opportunities to make money. And on many occasions, I
did. But then over a period of time, I think the losses start to outweigh those wins.
(#23 Race Betting Male 45 yrs)
I used say it was good, but like anything, there’s good and there’s not so good in
everything. The not so goods are really causing major problems. The good, well it’s
debatable whether it’s good anyway. It might be fun, but it catches up with you after a
while. For example, my current inability to deal with people has been born out of me
being isolated. Spending so much time online caused my confidence to drop, and my
confidence to be around people, and my inability to be around people.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
7.9.4 BEST ASPECTS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
From the 31 treatment‐seeking respondents, the best thing about interactive gambling was
reported to be its convenience and ease of access, as reported earlier in this chapter. The
second most popular response to this question related to the perceived large range of
options and better odds, as also reported earlier. The third most popular response was the
enjoyment of playing and the chance of winning reported by six respondents. These
respondents suggested:
It's fun, I guess. I like it. It’s very entertaining. Yes, it's better than playing real pokies. I
find you have more of a chance of winning on the Internet than in real life. It does work.
You win real money, so that's also a bonus. I don't have too much experience (of land‐
based EGMs). I've done it once and I didn't like it.
(#16 EGMs Female 18 yrs)
I enjoy it. I enjoy having $30 on a soccer match, and I like watching a soccer match, I
also like winning. I like the money to be building, so I have more money to spend on
gambling and also to buy a house or something. And so it stays exciting.
(#27 Race Betting Male 29 yrs)
241
No good thing
However, four treatment‐seeking respondents (all race and sports betting males) reported
that there were no aspects of interactive gambling that they thought were good, perhaps in
light of their acknowledged gambling problems and with the benefit of hindsight. One
respondent summed this up by saying:
If I didn’t have a gambling problem, it would be great. If I just could do a bet, it would be
great. For me now there’s no best thing. There isn’t any. There really isn’t any.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
7.9.5 WORST ASPECTS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
A total of 26 respondents reported what they believed were the worst things about
interactive gambling. Many respondents (17) stated that the worst thing was its
convenience and/or ready accessibility, and that this contributed to gambling problems. The
following response was typical:
The worst thing is that it is there all the time. You can pretty much bet around the clock,
day and night until you’re in trouble. I find myself having to say, ‘just relax, don’t think
about it, move on’, because it does get a bit full on. The worst thing is probably that it’s
too accessible, too easy.
(#18 Race Betting Male 34 yrs)
Eight respondents emphasised the speed with which large amounts of money could be bet
and lost online, and the fewer restraints experienced compared to land‐based gambling.
The worst thing is how easy it is to lose so much money online. You can spend a lot in
one day, and even lose everything you have and more.
(#41 Race Betting Male 50yrs).
It takes your money quicker. In a very short space and amount of time you can lose a lot
of money. And plus, to spend $3,000 at a club, you would have to go and change $100
notes, and going up to the same girl at the same register, you would attract a lot of
attention. But online you can play whatever you want, as long as you have the credit
cards. There’s no checks and balances.
(#44 EGMs Female 44yrs)
Four respondents suggested that, in some instances at least, this was linked to a sense of
unreality experienced when gambling online. Two explained:
I think actually the worst thing is that, as a gambler, when you bet online you’re not
thinking you’re dealing with actual money. It feels like a game. Its not physical. You
can’t actually feel the money in your hand, so it doesn’t feel like money. $500 dollars ‐
242
it’s just a couple of numbers on a screen. After a while you seem to not realise the
money you are losing.
(#8 Multiple Male age not provided)
The constant availability and the lack of reality. For anyone who has a penchant for
having a bet, the physical act of having to get up and go to a (wagering operator)
agency or venue it requires an effort, and requires you to think about what you’re doing.
Online there’s none of that. It’s just there in your face. With most online racing sites you
have to deposit funds by credit card so its not like cash. Once again you’re going into
debt and once you lose control the debt spirals. There’s no time to stop and think. And
you need to have that time to stop to think. The function of walking out your door,
getting in your car or walking to the venue.
This is major actually. With venue betting and land betting you physically see $100,
$200, $300 going into a machine. You see it, you feel it, you put it in. With online betting
you’re just betting money from accounts without that physical nature of handling cash.
It doesn’t make it as real. You’re disconnected from the cash, the physical, tangible cash.
There’s no way I would go into a (wagering operator) agency with $3,000 cash in my
pocket and lose it. I just wouldn’t. But online, ‘poof’ ‐ gone in a second.
(#4 Race Betting Male 49 yrs)
Two other respondents observed that interactive gambling could be isolating, perhaps
contributing to relationships issues and compromising mental health.
The worst thing is that you are isolating yourself away from others. You don’t really
spend that time with your family and friends, because you're clicking away on the
computer there. And people sometimes go insane.
(#27 Race Betting Male 29 yrs)
For me, the accessibility of it, 24/7, is the worst thing. It causes social isolation and
mental issues, or exacerbates them anyway.
(#20 EGMs Female 47 yrs)
Some respondents mentioned several aspects of interactive gambling that they considered
the worst. For example, one said:
Untrustworthy, too convenient, noxious promotions … also a lack of regulation. Maybe
there is regulation; I’m ignorant to it but a lack of, how would you say it, a lack of
Australian alternatives for online casinos.
(#49 EGMs Male 28 yrs)
243
7.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has presented the results from interviews with 31 interactive gamblers who
had recently received or were seeking or receiving treatment for a gambling problem at the
time of the interviews.
Similarly to the non‐treatment seeking sample, a number of participants reported early
gambling experiences with family and friends, and a large number had gambled before
being legally of age. EGMs were more commonly first experienced than on‐course wagering
and most participants had gambled on land‐based forms before gambling online.
Participants reported hearing about interactive gambling through friends or family
members, or through advertisements on television, at venues or online. All participants
reported that their gambling had increased significantly since they first began gambling
online. This was related to new products and games available, acquiring more portable
devices, and the availability of increased funds, including through credit. Some participants
reported gambling more due to changing circumstances leading to isolation and loneliness,
as well as being influenced by bonuses and promotions. Many participants still engaged in
land‐based gambling, and some reported attempts to reduce their online gambling as it was
more difficult to control.
Similarly to the non‐treatment seeking group, participants were most likely to use a
computer to gamble online, although smartphones were also popular. The motivating
factors were also similar, the majority reporting that the convenience and/or ease of access
were key reasons they played online, including when they couldn’t access land‐based
venues. Participants were also motivated by the better odds, more options and more
information available online, which were reported by some to make them feel that they had
a better chance of winning. Privacy was also reported by this group as a reason that
interactive gambling was more appealing than land‐based gambling, including not having to
get dressed, travel, and being able to hide their gambling from significant others.
Most participants held negative views of advertising and promotions and were concerned
that these provided undue inducements to gamble, attracted vulnerable people, were
unfair and misleading and that there were too many advertisements. In addition to offers of
bonuses, credit betting was raised as playing a key role in contributing to gambling
problems, as this encouraged people to spend more than they could afford. Use of digital
money and ease of gambling and depositing funds were also linked to gambling problems as
were speed and lack of limits and absence of scrutiny. Many participants commented on
differences between land‐based and interactive gambling, and how it was easier to lose
track of reality and more difficult to really think about one’s actions in the online
environment, with no one providing assistance or scrutiny. Some participants had taken
active steps to reduce their gambling, including blocking and closing accounts, but few
reported successfully using the resources provided by online operators. The majority of
244
participants indicated that interactive gambling required greater responsible gambling
measures than land‐based modes due to the lack of limits and ease of accessibility of this
mode. Several participants thought there should be more options to limit the amount spent
gambling as well as more prominent warning signs.
As inclusion criteria for this group comprised recently receiving or seeking help for a
gambling problem, the majority had utilised some help for their gambling problems. Most
participants had accessed multiple sources, including self‐help measures and informal
support. Participants reported mixed effectiveness of the strategies they had used and
challenges to seeking help were noted including waiting periods for counselling and
unhelpful experiences with counsellors. Most participants believed that the most effective
treatment of interactive gambling would entail some method of control, involving personal
control over gambling behaviour and/or imposed controls. Most participants had negative
views of interactive gambling and used very strong language to express their opinions.
The next chapter, Chapter Eight, presents secondary data compiled by government
departments and agencies from gambling treatment services in each Australian jurisdiction.
245
CHAPTER EIGHT
DATA FROM GAMBLING TREATMENT AGENCIES
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents data compiled by relevant government departments/agencies from
treatment services and helplines across Australia and used to estimate the prevalence of
interactive gamblers amongst help‐seeking gamblers. Government agencies in most
jurisdictions provided data. Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre also provided data from
the national Gambling Help Online service and gambling helplines that they operate.
However, variations exist in the type of data collected, basis on which data were classified
into respective categories, and recording periods (financial or calendar years). Accordingly,
the data were accepted at face value and therefore simply reported as provided by the
relevant departments and agencies. These variations are noted for each jurisdiction in the
relevant chapter sections. Also of note are the relatively small numbers of interactive
gamblers presenting for treatment in many jurisdictions. Accordingly, reported client
characteristics and trends reported should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.
8.2 NEW SOUTH WALES
The NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, provided Information for this section.
NSW Gambling Help Services
The most recent available data compiled from NSW Gambling Help Services data were for
the 2011‐12 financial year. During this period, 4,414 people received at least one
counselling session at a Gambling Help Service in NSW. Of these, 3,748 (84.9%) consented to
collection of their data in the Responsible Gambling Fund Client Data Set (CDS) with 2,818
(75.2%) of these being problem gamblers and the remainder, partners, family members or
significant others.
Of the problem gamblers providing relevant data, 93 (3.4%) reported ‘Internet’ as their
preferred means of accessing gambling (with the other options being ‘in person’,
‘telephone’ and ‘other (specify)’). Table 8.1 shows these data for 2011‐12, together with
comparable annual data since 2007‐08. It is apparent that, while the number of problem
gambler clients attending NSW Gambling Help Services has declined between 2007‐08 and
2011‐12, both the number of clients preferring to access gambling via the Internet and their
proportion amongst problem gambler clients has increased annually during the same
period.
246
Table 8.1: Number and percentage of problem gambler clients of NSW Gambling Help Services
reporting Internet as their preferred means of accessing gambling, 2007‐08 to 2011‐12
Year
Total clients
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
Consenting clients
N
N
%
4,414
4,237
4,495
4,382
4,880
3,748
3,643
3,971
3,974
4,317
84.9
85.6
88.3
90.7
88.5
Problem gambler
clients
N
%
N
%
2,818
2,795
3,028
2,936
3,042
93
78
65
55
37
3.4
3.0
2.3
2.1
1.7
Internet*
75.2
76.8
76.3
73.9
70.9
* Number and percentage of problem gamblers who report Internet as their preferred means of accessing
gambling.
Tables 8.2 to 8.4 show the breakdown of sex, age and principal gambling activity profiles for
problem gamblers attending a NSW Gambling Help Service over the last five years whose
preferred means of accessing gambling was the Internet. Data show that the vast majority
of these clients were male, and that about one‐half or slightly more were aged 18‐34 years
with the next most common age group being 35‐49 years. The most common reported
principal gambling activity was sports betting, exhibiting an upward trend since 2007‐08.
The next most common principal gambling activity was wagering on horses or dogs;
manifesting a decreasing trend since 2007‐08. However, given the small numbers of Internet
gambler clients, these trends should be interpreted with caution.
Table 8.2: Sex of clients of NSW Gambling Help Services who reported Internet as their preferred
means of accessing gambling, 2007‐08 to 2011‐12
Year
Male
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
Female
N
%
N
%
88
67
59
53
34
94.6
85.9
90.8
96.4
91.9
5
11
6
2
3
5.4
14.1
9.2
3.6
8.1
Table 8.3: Age group of clients of NSW Gambling Help Services who reported Internet as their
preferred means of accessing gambling, 2007‐08 to 2011‐12
Year
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
<18 years
N
%
0
1
0
0
2
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
5.4
18‐34 years
N
%
46
43
37
29
15
49.5
56.6
59.7
55.8
40.5
35‐49 years
N
%
35
21
20
21
15
247
37.6
27.6
32.3
40.4
40.5
50‐64 years
N
%
65+ years
N
%
11
10
4
2
5
1
1
1
0
0
11.8
13.2
6.5
3.8
13.5
1.1
1.3
1.6
0.0
0.0
Table 8.4: Principal gambling activity of clients of NSW Gambling Help Services who reported
Internet as their preferred means of accessing gambling, 2007‐08 to 2011‐12
Year
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
Sports betting
N
%
37
30
17
20
9
40.2
39.5
27.0
37.7
25.0
Horses/dogs
N
%
23
24
27
14
13
Card games
N
%
25.0
31.6
42.9
26.4
36.1
11
6
12
6
4
12.0
7.9
19.0
11.3
11.1
EGMs
N
%
N
%
9
10
6
6
1
12
6
1
7
9
13.0
7.9
1.6
13.2
25.0
9.8
13.2
9.5
11.3
2.8
Other
NSW Gambling Helpline
The NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, provided data about the NSW Gambling
Helpline for both the 2012‐13 and 2011‐12 financial years.
In 2012‐13, the NSW Gambling Helpline received 7,724 target calls; 6,256 (81%) from
problem gamblers and the remainder, from partners, family members, and significant
others. Data from the problem gambling callers revealed that 170 (2.7%) reported the
Internet as their preferred means of accessing gambling. However, there was a mystery
caller project undertaken in early 2013, and as these mystery calls were not deleted from
the 2012‐13 Gambling Helpline data, this rate may be slightly inflated.
Comparison with the 2011‐12 data (Table 8.5) shows a decline in numbers of problem
gambler callers reporting the Internet as their preferred means of gambling. The gender
distribution remained similar, with males comprising over 80% of callers. Compared to
2011‐12, callers in 2012‐13 tended to be younger with the largest age group being 18‐24
years in 2012‐13 compared to 30‐39 years in 2011‐12. The most common marital status of
callers was never married for both years. The principal gambling activity for both years
remained predominantly gambling on horse/dog races, although the proportion of
horse/dog bettors amongst callers more than doubled between 2011‐12 and 2012‐13.
248
Table 8.5: Sex, age group, marital status and principal gambling activity of NSW gambling helpline
callers whose preferred means of accessing gambling was the Internet, 2011‐12 to 2012‐13
Interactive gamblers
Characteristic
2012‐13
(N = 170)
2011‐12
(N = 298)
N
%
N
%
Male
Female
N/A
140
30
0
82.4
17.6
0.0
242
52
4
81.2
17.4
1.3
< 18
18‐24
25‐29
30‐39
40‐49
50‐59
60+
N/A
3
30
23
22
21
8
11
52
1.8
17.6
13.5
12.9
12.4
4.7
6.5
30.6
4
17
55
94
59
1
11
57
1.3
5.7
18.5
31.5
19.8
0.3
3.7
19.1
Defacto
Married
Never Married
Separated/divorced
Widowed
N/A
9
43
59
6
1
52
5.3
25.3
34.7
3.5
0.6
30.6
11
59
127
19
0
82
3.7
19.8
42.6
6.4
0.0
27.5
Principal gambling activity
Card Games (Not At Casino)
Casino Table Games
Gaming Machines
Horse/Dog Races
Keno
Sports Betting
Lottery
Other
N/A
6
3
27
63
1
22
0
46
2
3.5
1.8
15.9
37.1
0.6
12.9
0.0
27.1
1.2
11
3
44
52
0
45
1
75
67
3.7
1.0
14.8
17.4
0.0
15.1
0.3
25.2
22.5
Gender
Age Group
Marital status
8.3 QUEENSLAND
The Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation provided data for the 2012
calendar year, with some supplementary data for the 2012‐13 financial year provided by
Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre.
249
Queensland Gambling Help Services
During 2012, 802 people attended Gambling Help Services in Queensland. Of these people:
•
•
•
•
32 (4.0%) people indicated that they participated in Internet gambling during 2012.
20 (2.5%) people indicated that Internet gambling was a favourite gambling activity
(3 non‐responses).
21 (2.6%) people indicated that Internet gambling was problematic for them (4 non‐
responses).
18 (2.2%) people indicated that Internet gambling was both a favourite gambling
activity and problematic for them.
Table 8.6 shows the breakdown by sex, age and problematic mode of gambling for the 21
people who nominated Internet gambling as problematic. Please note that the Gambling
Help Client Assessment Details sheet completed by counsellors lists ‘Gambled on the
Internet’ as an ‘all‐inclusive’ form of Internet gambling activity. Thus, no details could be
provided about the specific subtypes of Internet gambling activity problematic for clients
and it is unclear how this categorisation of Internet gambling affects the interpretation of
data.
Table 8.6: Sex, age group and problematic gambling mode of clients of QLD gambling help services
who reported Internet gambling as a problematic form of gambling for them, 2012 (N = 21)
Characteristic
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Gender
Male
Female
16
5
76.2
23.8
18 to 21 years
22 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 to 35 years
36 to 40 years
41 to 45 years
46 to 50 years
51 to 55 years
56 to 60 years
60 to 70 years
71 years and over
0
1
4
7
4
4
0
1
0
0
0
0.0
4.8
19.0
33.3
19.0
19.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Internet gambling only
Internet gambling & various forms of land‐based gambling
12
9
57.1
42.8
Age Group
Principal gambling activity
250
Queensland Gambling Helpline
The Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation reported that there were 3,368
calls made to the Gambling Helpline by Queenslanders in 2012. Of these, 31 people (0.9%)
stated that they were calling about an Internet gambling problem. Table 8.7 shows the
breakdown by sex and age of these 31 people. About two‐thirds (64.5%) were male and
nearly three‐quarters (70.9%) were aged between 26 and 50 years. The most common age
group was 36‐40 years.
Table 8.7: Sex and age group of QLD gambling helpline callers who called about an Internet
gambling problem, 2012 (N = 31)
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
20
11
64.5
35.5
18 to 21 years
22 to 25 years
26 to 30 years
31 to 35 years
36 to 40 years
41 to 45 years
46 to 50 years
51 to 55 years
56 to 60 years
60 to 70 years
71 years and over
N/A
0
1
5
4
9
4
3
0
0
3
0
2
0.0
3.2
16.1
12.9
29.0
12.9
9.7
0.0
0.0
9.7
0.0
6.5
Age Group
Data on the Queensland Gambling Helpline were also provided by Turning Point Drug and
Alcohol Centre, which operates this helpline. These data were for the 2012‐13 financial year.
Of 1,411 people who called the helpline for help for a gambling problem, 58 people
nominated an interactive device as their main ‘method of gambling’. Of these 58 people, 50
(86.2%) were male and about three‐quarters (77.5%) were aged between 30 and 54 years,
with the most common age group being 45‐49 years. A little over half (53.4%) nominated
their main type of gambling as EGMs, and a further 20.7% race betting and 19.0% sports
betting, respectively.
8.4 VICTORIA
The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation provided information for the 2012‐13
financial year. The data represent statewide clients presenting to Gamblers Help Services or
calling the Gambling Helpline identifying themselves as having a gambling issue, for problem
gambling counselling only, and/or, in the case of Helpline, for advice. The Gamblers Help
251
Services data represent client count for each aggregate category and should be interpreted
as unique instances of service in the 2012‐13 financial year, i.e., each client is only counted
once, even if they received more than one session during the financial year. Only clients
with recorded direct face‐to‐face or telephone sessions are included.
The Gambling Helpline data are counted such that each call (identified individual with a
gambling issue only) is counted, as unique callers cannot always be determined. It is also
important to note that callers to the Helpline can be referred to Gamblers Help Services and
may be counted in both data sets. Therefore, the data below are not representative of the
total client numbers for statewide Gamblers Help Services or the Helpline, as the above
noted filters have been applied.
Victorian Gambler’s Help Services
Of 2,887 clients who presented with a gambling issue for problem gambling counselling (not
financial counselling) in the 2012‐13 financial year, 155 (5.4%) stated their primary gambling
venue as Internet/online. Table 8.8 shows the breakdown by sex, age group, marital status
and primary gambling activity of these 155 clients. The majority were male, most likely to be
aged 30‐39 years, and married or in a defacto relationship. The most common primary
gambling activity horse/greyhound wagering followed by sports betting.
252
Table 8.8: Sex, age group, marital status and primary gambling activity of clients of Victorian
gambling help services who reported Internet/online as their primary gambling venue, 2012‐13 (N
= 155)
Characteristic
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Gender
Male
Female
135
20
87.1
12.9
< 20 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 years and over
2
15
20
30
30
20
15
10
8
2
2
1
1.3
9.7
12.9
19.4
19.4
12.9
9.7
6.5
5.2
1.3
1.3
0.6
Divorced
Married (Registered or De Facto)
Never Married
Separated
No Data
10
79
40
9
17
6.5
51.0
25.8
5.8
11.0
Card Games
Electronic Gaming Machines
Horse/Greyhound Racing
Lotto/Lotteries/Pools/Keno
Numbers Games (eg: Dice Games and Roulette)
Other Gambling Activity
Sports Betting
Not Stated or Inadequately Described
9
16
51
1
1
36
44
2
5.6
10.0
31.9
0.6
0.6
22.5
27.5
1.3
Age Group
Marital status
Primary gambling activity
Victorian Gambling Helpline
The Gambling Helpline records Internet gambling under type of gambling. Of 3,957 Victorian
callers, 78 (2.0%) stated this form to be their primary gambling type. Table 8.9 shows the
breakdown by sex, age group and primary gambling venue of these 78 callers. Most were
male, and the most common age group was 30‐34 years, followed by 29‐30 years. The most
common venue for Internet gambling was at home, and PC/laptop, the most commonly
used device.
253
Table 8.9: Sex, age group, primary gambling venue and gambling mode of Victorian gambling
helpline callers whose main gambling type was Internet gambling, 2012‐13 (N = 78)
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
59
19
75.6
24.4
< 20 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 years and over
Unknown
7
7
11
16
5
7
9
3
4
1
1
7
9.0
9.0
14.1
20.5
6.4
9.0
11.5
3.8
5.1
1.3
1.3
9.0
Casino
Club
Home
Hotel/Pub
Not Applicable
Other
Unknown
Work
1
1
66
1
1
1
2
5
1.3
1.3
84.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.6
6.4
Didn't ask
Digital TV
Don't know
Go to a venue
iPhone/iPad/Smart phone/PDA
PC/laptop
Telephone betting
1
1
2
1
11
59
3
1.3
1.3
2.6
1.3
14.1
75.6
3.8
Age Group
Primary gambling venue
Gambling mode
8.5 SOUTH AUSTRALIA
No data were provided in relation to South Australia.
254
8.6 Tasmania
Information In this section was provided by the Tasmanian Department of Health and
Human Services, with some supplementary data provided by Turning Point Alcohol and Drug
Centre.
Tasmanian Gambling Help Services
The most recent available data compiled from Tasmanian Gambling Help Services data were
for the 2012‐13 financial year. These face‐to‐face problem gambling counselling services
reported 231 new cases in 2012‐13. Of these, nine (3.9%) cited Internet gambling (including
Internet‐Betfair, Internet‐Sports Betting, Internet‐Other) as their primary form of gambling.
Table 8.10 shows the breakdown by sex, age and employment status for these nine cases.
Table 8.10: Sex, age group and employment status of new clients of Tasmanian gambling help
services who reported Internet gambling as a problematic form of gambling for them, 2012‐13 (N =
9)
Characteristic
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Gender
Male
Female
9
0
100.0
0.0
0 to 17 years
18 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 64 years
65 years and over
0
1
5
2
1
0
0
0.0
11.1
55.6
22.2
11.1
0.0
0.0
Employed
Unemployed
Not recorded
5
3
1
55.6
33.3
11.1
Age Group
Employment status
Gamblers Helpline Tasmania
In addition to the face‐to‐face counselling services, Gamblers Helpline Tasmania received
267 clinical calls in 2012‐13. Of those, 134 callers identified a main gambling type with five
callers (3.7%) nominating Internet gambling.
Data on callers to the Tasmanian Gambling Helpline were also provided by Turning Point
Drug and Alcohol Centre, which operates this helpline. These data were for the 2012‐13
financial year. Of 150 people calling the helpline for a gambling problem, four people
nominated an interactive device as their main ‘method of gambling’. All four were male,
with two aged 30‐39 years, one aged 65 years or over, and one whose age was unknown.
255
Two of these four callers nominated EGMs as their main gambling type, one nominated card
games and the other nominated race wagering.
8.7 WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The Western Australian Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor provided statistics from
the annual reports of their two problem gambling help services – Gambling Help WA and
the WA Problem Gambling Helpline. These statistics were for the financial year 2012‐13.
WA Gambling Help Services
Of the 441 clients seen by gambling help services in 2012‐2013, 419 were gamblers and 22
were family/friends/other. Of the 441 clients, 10 selected online gaming and 12 selected
online race/sports betting as the main form of problem gambling. Thus, these 22 selecting
online gambling represented 5.0% of total clients. Because these statistics were compiled
for the whole client group, it is not known how many of the 22 clients nominating Internet
gaming or wagering as the main problem were gamblers or family/friends/other. No
information was available on sex, age or gambling activity of these 22 Internet gambling‐
related clients, because these data were compiled only for the whole client group of 441
people.
WA Gambling Helpline
A total of 452 people called the WA Gambling Helpline about their own gambling in 2012‐
13. Of these, 53 people (11.7%) identified Internet gambling as their most common form. Of
these 53, 48 (90.6%) were men and five (9.4%) were women.
Since November 2012, the helpline commenced asking clients their preferred means of
accessing gambling services (In person, telephone, Internet or not provided). Since that time
19% of the clients have nominated the Internet.
8.8 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
The ACT Gaming and Racing Commission provided information for this section.
ACT Gambling Help Services
The ACT has only one government funded gambling support service – the ACT Gambling
Counselling and Support Service operated by Mission Australia. That service provided the
below figures to the Commission. The Commission is also aware of a several individuals
offering private practice gambling counselling services and through other support services,
other than at Mission Australia. However, the Commission does not have access to client
data on such populations.
In 2012‐13, problem gambler clients presenting to the ACT Gambling Counselling and
Support Service reporting some form of Internet gambling as their primary or most
256
problematic form of gambling comprised 7.4% of all clients, an increase from 5.2% in the
previous year (Table 8.11).
Table 8.11: Number and percentage of problem gambler clients of ACT Gambling Counselling and
Support Service who reported some form of Internet gambling as their primary or most
problematic form of gambling, 2011‐12 to 2012‐13
Year
Total clients
N
2012/13
2011/12
Internet sports
betting
N
%
121
96
7
3
5.8
3.1
Internet casino
betting
N
%
2
2
1.6
2.1
Total Internet
N
%
9
5
7.4
5.2
ACT Gambling Helpline
The ACT does not have an independent gambling helpline. Mission Australia takes the 1800
858 858 calls during the day and after hours, switches it to a counsellor in NSW. Mission
Australia encourages 1800 helpline clients to attend service they offer. Accordingly, they
only collect data on mode of gambling on new face‐to‐face clients and not on those only
phoning the service.
8.9 NORTHERN TERRITORY
No data could be provided from the Northern Territory help services as collection of client
interactive gambling data had only recently commenced. However, Turning Point Alcohol
and Drug Centre provided the following statistics pertaining to the Northern Territory
Gambling Helpline. In 2012‐13, only two of 32 callers nominated their main ‘method of
gambling’ as an interactive device. Both were males aged 35‐39 years. For one, the main
type of gambling was EGMs, and the other, sports betting. Given these small numbers and
the lack of data from face‐to‐face services on clients with interactive gambling problems, no
conclusions can be drawn about the contribution of interactive gambling to help‐seeking
clients in the Northern Territory.
8.10 GAMBLING HELP ONLINE
Gambling Help Online, a national Australian service providing 24/7 online support, self‐help
tools and information for identifying and dealing with problem gambling, provided
information for this section. In the 2012‐13 financial year, 1,124 people presented for help
for a gambling problem. Of these, 645 people (57.4%) mainly used an interactive ‘method of
gambling’ (including PC/laptop, iPhone/Smartphone/PDA, or digital TV), while 200 (17.8%)
used the telephone, 15 visited venues (1.3%), and 264 people (23.5%) did not provide a
response. Thus, Gambling Help Online appears to be attracting a far higher proportion of
interactive gamblers amongst its clients than are the face‐to‐face services and gambling
helplines in Australia. However, the different bases used for identifying interactive gamblers
257
amongst the various datasets presented in this chapter means comparisons should be made
with caution.
Table 8.12 shows that the vast majority of Gambling Help Online clients using an interactive
device for gambling used a PC/laptop. The gender spilt was more evenly distributed than for
face‐to‐face services and gambling helplines, with 43.4% of clients being female. Nearly two‐
thirds of clients (60.3%) were aged between 20 and 34 years, with the largest group aged
25‐29 years. The vast majority of clients (94.9%) nominated EGMs as their main type of
gambling. However, given the low use of online EGMs found in previous stages of this study,
it is highly unlikely that most of the EGM usage reported by Gambling Help Online clients
relates to online gambling on EGMs. Given that ‘method of gambling’ appears to capture
many land‐based EGM gamblers, it is unclear how representative the data are of clients
seeking help for interactive modes of gambling.
Table 8.12: Method of gambling, sex, age group and type of gambling of Gambling Help Online
clients who presented for help for themselves, 2012‐13 (N = 645)
Characteristic
Interactive gamblers
N
%
Method of gambling
PC / Laptop
615
95.3
iPhone / Smartphone / PDA
26
4.0
Digital TV
4
0.6
Gender
Male
365
56.6
Female
280
43.4
Age Group
0 ‐ 14
0
0.0
15 ‐ 19
29
4.5
20 ‐ 24
122
18.9
25 ‐ 29
158
24.5
30 ‐ 34
109
16.9
35 ‐ 39
64
9.9
40 ‐ 44
57
8.8
45 ‐ 49
34
5.3
50 ‐ 54
28
4.3
55 ‐ 59
26
4.0
60 ‐ 64
12
1.9
65+
6
0.9
Type of gambling
Bingo
4
0.6
Card Games
26
4.0
EGMs
612
94.9
Lotteries
0
0.0
Races ‐ Off Course
0
0.0
Sports Betting
3
0.5
Stock Market
0
0.0
Other
0
0.0
258
8.11 LIMITATIONS
The data in this chapter should be interpreted with several limitations in mind. The data are
administrative data collected and compiled by non‐researchers and it is not known how
consistently data collection procedures were applied, and whether there was any variability
in how questions were asked, the accuracy of data recorded, and use of consistent
categories. As noted earlier, the time periods that the data apply to vary between financial
years and calendar years and the basis for determining whether a client or caller was an
interactive gambler or was experiencing problems with interactive gambling varied across
jurisdictions. Additionally, the number of interactive gamblers contacting help services is
small, so percentages and trends should be interpreted with caution.
8.12 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has presented information compiled by relevant government
departments/agencies from treatment services and helplines across jurisdictions in Australia
to estimate the prevalence of interactive gamblers amongst help‐seeking gamblers. Several
inconsistencies in the way that these data were collected prevented the compilation of
national statistics. However, the data would appear to suggest that interactive gambling
currently represents a minor contribution to gambling problems amongst Australians
seeking assistance from face‐to‐face and telephone help services. The vast majority of
counselling clients and helpline callers nominating interactive gambling as their main form
of gambling and/or the main cause of their gambling problems were males, aged between
18 and 39 years. The most common forms of problematic gambling reported by this cohort
were sports and race wagering.
However, the national Gambling Help Online data provides a very different client profile.
People contacting this service for help with their own gambling and whose main method of
accessing gambling was via an Internet‐enabled device were reported to comprise 57.4% of
all people contacting this service. Further, this cohort was younger than for the other
services and the gender breakdown was more even, with EGMs nominated by the vast
majority as their main type of gambling.
Table 8.13 summarises the main data provided for this chapter, although small numbers and
different bases for identifying interactive gamblers mean these data should be interpreted
with caution and with regard for the explanations and caveats outlined above by the
departments and agencies which provided the data.
259
Table 8.13: Problem gambler clients of gambling treatment agencies who reported the Internet as
their preferred/primary/problematic means or method of accessing gambling as a % of all problem
gambler clients
NSW
Gambling
help services
Gambling
helplines
Gambling
Help Online
QLD
VIC
N
TAS
WA
ACT
Australia
N
%
N
%
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
93
3.4
21
2.6 155 5.4
9
3.9
22
5.0
9
7.4
170 2.7
31
0.9
5
3.7
53
11.7 N/A N/A
78
2.0
N
%
645 57.4
Note: Figures derived from tables in this chapter; see accompanying notes. Data collection periods vary
between jurisdictions and comprise 2011‐12, 2012, and 2012‐13.
The next chapter, Chapter Nine, concludes this report by summarising and discussing the
results of this study in relation to the literature.
260
CHAPTER NINE
DISCUSSION
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarises the study’s findings and discusses them in relation to the extant
literature. It is structured as follows to explicitly address the requirements of the project
tender:
•
•
•
•
•
Motivations for interactive gambling;
Characteristics of interactive gamblers;
Attitudes and knowledge about gambling, promotions, and legality of interactive
gambling;
Gambling behaviours of interactive gamblers;
•
Game play preferences of interactive gamblers;
•
Transition from terrestrial gambling to interactive gambling;
•
Medium preferences of interactive gamblers;
•
Current prevalence of interactive gambling;
•
Current prevalence of problem gambling among interactive gamblers;
•
Contribution of Internet gambling to problem gambling in interactive gamblers; and
•
Comorbid mental health and substance use;
Help‐seeking and responsible gambling.
9.2 MOTIVATIONS FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Motivations for engaging in interactive gambling are discussed in terms of its advantages
and disadvantages, as reported by study participants.
9.2.1 ADVANTAGES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
By far the greatest advantage of, and motivator for, interactive gambling cited by
participants was the convenience of access. This was endorsed as an advantage over land‐
based gambling by two‐thirds of interactive gamblers in the online survey. This is consistent
with previous Australian and international studies (American Gaming Association, 2006;
Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Griffiths & Barnes, 2008; McCormack & Griffiths, 2012a;
Wood & Williams, 2010) and indicates that, despite the relatively high accessibility of
multiple forms of gambling in most parts of Australia, the convenience of interactive
gambling is the greatest attraction for this mode.
261
Although geographical location was not related to the likelihood of interactive gambling,
several interview participants stated that relative geographical isolation and lack of
transport or disability made online gambling an easier option than travelling to venues.
Overall, responses from interviews with interactive gamblers indicate that convenience of
online gambling is related to ease of access from any location using mobile phones. This
ease enables individuals to place bets at any time of the day and overcomes barriers such as
having to find and travel to a venue, leave the house, or dress appropriately. Interviewees
also reported that interactive gambling is quicker and faster than land‐based gambling. In
particular, online wagering was reported to be faster than having to wait in line and
complete betting slips in retail venues, and avoided having to miss out on placing bets close
to an event starting.
The second most commonly reported advantage of interactive gambling as compared to
land‐based modes by over one‐third of online survey participants was the price differential,
including more bonuses, free credits and better odds and payout rates. The value of price
was reported more often in the current survey than in a previous survey of Internet
gamblers (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012), perhaps indicating that this factor has become
more important or tangible for interactive gamblers.
Interview responses provide further insight into the ability of online gamblers to search for
the best price online by checking current and/or other websites of various operators. This
tendency to search online for the best product and price option, including using mobiles at a
retail outlet, is similar to trends in other retail sectors that are driving consumer online
purchasing behaviours (Grewal, Roggeveen, Compeau, & Levy, 2012). Being able to access a
greater number of betting options was reported as an advantage by over one‐fifth of
interactive gamblers in the online survey, which is related to the availability of greater
information and access through online sites than land‐based venues. Several respondents in
the general population interview sample considered promotions to be beneficial as these
offered ‘free’ money and many signed up with multiple operators to take advantage of
these deals.
The third most commonly reported advantage of interactive gambling was the physical
comfort of being able to gamble from home, reported by just under one‐third of interactive
gamblers in the online survey. This was similar to the responses of Australian online
gamblers in a previous survey (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). Related to this finding is that
about one‐in‐ten interactive gamblers reported they disliked land‐based venues, with a
similar proportion of respondents citing a preference for privacy when gambling. Several
interactive gamblers who were interviewed described disliking being around other gamblers
and were able to focus or concentrate more without being distracted or disrupted by
others. Several participants also made reference to ‘undesirables’ who frequented retail
betting outlets, indicating that online gambling may be more attractive to people who
would not otherwise be placing bets. In contrast, a small number of survey respondents
262
discussed their preference for social interaction through online gambling, with one
interview respondent reporting that online poker was a social outlet.
Several interactive gamblers in the general population interview sample discussed the
excitement and thrill of interactive gambling as being the chief advantage of this mode.
Similarly, interactive gamblers in the treatment‐seeking sample discussed their enjoyment
of the activity, which was fun and gave them the chance to win money. These responses
may be reflected in the 8% of interactive gamblers in the online survey citing the better
game experience as the main advantage of this mode. It is likely that participants in the
interviews may have also been reflecting on gambling overall, while the respondents in the
online survey were focussing specifically on interactive gambling in comparison to land‐
based modes.
9.2.2 DISADVANTAGES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
When asked about the disadvantages of interactive gambling, the most common responses
from participants in the online survey and the interactive gamblers interviewed were that it
was too convenient, with a substantial proportion of interactive gamblers also stating that
this mode was more addictive and it was easier to spend money. The disadvantages relating
to gambling problems will be discussed more completely below.
In addition, several other concerns with interactive gambling were cited. One‐in‐five online
survey participants were concerned about the safety of their money and personal
information. Several participants in the treatment‐seeking interactive gambling sample also
questioned the legitimacy, security and integrity of some interactive gambling sites,
including concerns about the integrity of sports and racing events as well as online poker.
However, less than 9% of online survey participants cited difficulty verifying the fairness of
games as a disadvantage. Concerns about security, privacy and game integrity are consistent
with Australian and international research (Gainsbury, Parke et al. 2013; Gainsbury, Wood
et al., 2012; Wood & Williams, 2010). Given the numerous instances of regulated and
offshore sites being shut down and not paying customers or experiencing cheating and
fraud (McMullan & Rege, 2010) this is a legitimate concern which, given the lack of power to
resolve actions with offshore operators in particular, should be a larger concern for players.
A substantial proportion of interactive gamblers in the online survey (18%) reported
concerns about their ability to access the Internet or technological difficulties, which were
also reflected in interviews with the general population sample. Some interactive gamblers
reported a less enjoyable experience as compared to land‐based gambling. Almost one‐third
of interactive gamblers who completed the online survey (30.3%) stated that there were no
disadvantages of this mode of gambling.
These findings highlight the variance in why people engage in interactive gambling as
compared to land‐based forms. This study did not inquire why land‐based gamblers do not
engage in interactive modes of gambling, which is an important question for future
research.
263
9.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Overall, the most significant and consistent findings are that interactive gamblers are likely
to be male and younger than land‐based gamblers, but not necessarily young adults. These
findings suggest that interactive gamblers do represent a somewhat different cohort of
gamblers to land‐based players. However, the variety found in all cohorts of interactive
gamblers included in this research demonstrates the heterogeneity of the population and
importance of caution when drawing conclusions about the population of interactive
gamblers as a whole without consideration of subgroups.
9.3.1 GENDER
Both surveys found that being male was a significant predictor of interactive gambling, with
62.34% and 76.6% of interactive gamblers in the telephone and online surveys respectively
being male. These findings are consistent with previous Australian and international
research (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Griffiths et al., 2009; Queensland Government,
2012; Sproston et al., 2012; Woolley, 2003; Wood & Williams, 2011). Nonetheless, almost
two‐fifths of the interactive gamblers in the telephone survey were women, indicating that
this mode of gambling may be increasing in popularity amongst women. Few studies have
specifically examined the use of interactive gambling amongst women, suggesting that this
is an important area for further research.
9.3.2 AGE
In both the national telephone and online surveys, interactive gamblers were significantly
younger than non‐interactive gamblers. Younger age was also a significant predictor of
interactive gambling in both surveys. However, the mean age of interactive gamblers was 37
years in the national, and 42 years in the online, surveys, and interactive gamblers were
more common in each of the age groups from 25 to 39 years.
The online survey found young adults aged 20 to 24 years were more likely to be land‐based
gamblers than interactive gamblers, in contrast to the telephone survey. Both surveys also
found that those aged 65 years and over were more likely to be land‐based than interactive
gamblers, which is not surprising given the reduced likelihood of older Australians using the
Internet (ABS, 2013). These results are consistent with previous studies showing that
interactive gamblers are likely to be young to middle‐age adults. Previous studies have
found high rates of interactive gambling among young Australians (Delfabbro et al., 2005;
Dowling et al., 2010; Jackson et al., 2008; Ly, 2010). Future research should investigate
interactive gambling in more detail amongst young adults as well as representative samples
of adolescents who were not included in this study to determine the prevalence of
interactive gambling among these populations who are highly active online (ABS, 2013).
264
9.3.3 EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
In the telephone survey interactive gamblers were more likely to have university degrees
and to have graduated from Year 12 than non‐interactive gamblers, although no significant
differences were found in education levels in the online survey. Being self‐employed was a
predictor of interactive gambling in the online survey. Both surveys indicated that
interactive gamblers were more likely to work full‐time while non‐interactive gamblers were
more likely to be in casual or part‐time employment. In the telephone survey, students were
more likely to be online gamblers; however this trend was reversed in the online survey.
Previous Australian research has found higher rates of online gambling amongst students
(Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Ly, 2010), suggesting that the student population is an
important one to study for interactive gambling use. The online survey also found that those
who worked as a machinery operator/driver or labourer were more likely to report
gambling online. The relationship between types of jobs and online gambling has not been
studied previously, although the telephone survey found interactive gamblers were more
likely to have broadband Internet access at work. These findings are somewhat incongruous,
but may be related to other factors such as shift work. The research does not support
previous findings that interactive gamblers are more likely to be highly educated and
working in professional or office environments and highlights the heterogeneous population
of interactive gamblers.
9.3.4 MARITAL STATUS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
Interactive gamblers in the telephone survey were less likely to be married than land‐based
gamblers and more likely to be living in a de facto relationship or to never have been
married (with other categories being divorced/separated and widowed). These findings
were not replicated in the online survey. The telephone survey found Interactive gamblers
were more likely to be in a single parent with children or group household. However, the
online survey found land‐based gamblers were more likely to be from one‐parent with
children households and interactive gamblers were more likely to live with dual parents and
children. In terms of the reported household incomes of gamblers in the online survey,
interactive gamblers were significantly more likely to report household incomes of between
$90,000 and $119,000.
The telephone survey found that interactive gamblers were significantly more likely to have
broadband Internet access at home and work. The online survey found no difference in the
proportion of interactive and non‐interactive gamblers who had a mobile phone or landline
only or both mobile and landline phones. Although the telephone survey did not include
mobile phone numbers, these results suggest that participants recruited through landlines
do not significantly differ from those recruited via mobile phones. This confirms findings
from a previous study, which also showed that participants recruited through landlines did
not significantly differ from those recruited via mobile phones in past year gambling
265
behaviour, including interactive gambling (Jackson, Pennay, Dowling, Coles‐Janess, &
Christensen, in press).
The online and telephone surveys found that living in Victoria, Queensland or Western
Australia (compared to NSW) was a significant predictor for interactive gambling. However,
the telephone survey found that Western Australian gamblers were more likely to be land‐
based gamblers. As no recent prevalence surveys have been completed in Victoria and
Western Australia it is difficult to understand why these States may have different rates of
interactive gambling. In particular, it would be very useful to have a greater understanding
of gambling participation in Western Australia, given that this state has different levels of
gambling access, specifically in relation to the availability of EGMs. No significant differences
were found between individuals from metropolitan or rural areas, suggesting that
geographical remoteness was not related to use of interactive gambling.
Australian‐born and English‐speaking respondents were significantly more likely to be
interactive gamblers than those born overseas or not speaking English at home in the online
survey. These findings suggest a cultural difference between interactive and land‐based
gamblers, such that Australian‐born and English speaking Australians find online gambling
sites more appealing and are more interested in betting via this technology. However, larger
samples of these sub‐groups are needed to verify this result.
9.4 ATTITUDES AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GAMBLING, PROMOTIONS, AND THE
LEGALITY OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
9.4.1 ATTITUDES ABOUT GAMBLING
Approximately two‐thirds of interactive gamblers reported they considered that the harms
of gambling outweigh the benefits for society overall. Despite this, the telephone and online
surveys were consistent in showing that a significantly higher proportion of interactive
gamblers considered that the benefits of gambling outweigh the harms to society as
compared to non‐interactive gamblers. Similarly, interactive gamblers were significantly less
likely to state that the harms of gambling far outweigh the benefits.
Responses from general population sample of interactive gamblers provided similarly mixed
results with participants viewing gambling in a positive, negative, and mixed way.
Approximately half of these interactive gamblers held mixed opinions, which were largely
based on the view that while gambling may be a recreational activity for some, it could be
problematic for others. These participants discussed that although interactive gambling
should be allowed, resources and supports should be put in place to assist those who may
not be able to control their gambling.
These results are consistent with previous Australian research (Gainsbury, Wood et al.,
2012). The more positive attitudes towards gambling are likely related to the greater
involvement of interactive gamblers in multiple forms of gambling, suggesting that they are
266
more positively disposed towards this activity as a form of entertainment. Additionally,
harms from interactive gambling are hidden as the activity is generally conducted in private.
The greater involvement of interactive gamblers may also expose them to the ways in which
gambling contributes to society, such as through employment and revenues to various
sporting and non‐profit organisations. However, it would be expected that gamblers who
visit land‐based venues would have greater exposure to these benefits of gambling. It is
likely that land‐based gamblers have greater exposure to other gamblers, including those
who are directly suffering from gambling‐related harms.
9.4.2 ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Only a small proportion of interactive gamblers indicated that advertisements and
promotions for online gambling had a substantial impact on which site they chose for
gambling. Nonetheless, interactive gamblers were significantly more likely to report that
viewing promotions for online gambling increased the likelihood that they would gamble
online, compared to non‐interactive gamblers.
Several respondents in the general population interviews reported that they found
promotions quite influential and would even seek these out to take advantage of offers of
‘free’ credits and signed up with multiple operators as a result. Other interview respondents
stated that receiving emails from online operators, for example about upcoming events or
lottery draws, encouraged them to purchase tickets or place bets. Some respondents
indicated that these emails could be quite predatory and were often excessive. Examples of
advertising and promotions provided by interviews encompassed many of those described
by Weibe (2008) to recruit, register and retain interactive gamblers.
Promotions for online gambling also had a substantial impact on non‐interactive gamblers.
Respondents in the online survey who were not already active online were more likely to
report that such promotions decreased their intentions to gamble online. However, this
impact was only reported by just over one‐tenth of gamblers, with one‐fifth of non‐
interactive gamblers indicating that promotions would increase their likelihood of
interactive gambling. This is consistent with the finding that 11% of interactive gamblers
viewed advertisements and marketing as a central factor in their decision to start gambling
on a particular site. A further 9% of interactive gamblers in the online survey reported that
marketing and promotions were critical in leading them to start gambling online initially.
These are significant findings as they suggest that advertisements are highly influential for a
substantial proportion of players.
Despite the greater impact of promotions for online gambling on interactive gamblers, this
cohort was more liberal in their views, and more likely to approve of promotions for online
gambling through various marketing channels. Over half of the interactive gamblers in the
telephone survey thought promotions for online gambling should be allowed online and in
traditional media, and two‐fifths approved of promotions at sporting events, with one‐third
approving promotions on billboards and on team uniforms. Only one‐quarter of interactive
267
gamblers were supportive of promotions for online gambling during televised broadcasts of
sporting events. One‐quarter of interactive gamblers did not support any promotions for
online gambling, as compared to nearly two‐thirds of non‐interactive gamblers. These
results reflect the heterogeneity within interactive gamblers as well as land‐based gamblers
in terms of the perceived appropriateness of promotions for online gambling.
These findings provide some insights into the attitudes of gamblers towards promotions for
online gambling. A report by Ebiquity (2012) found that television advertising for online
wagering operators alone had increased from $12 million in 2010 to over $41 million in
2012. Although interactive gamblers were more supportive of promotions for online
gambling, a substantial proportion of gamblers do not support its widespread promotion.
Negative opinions of advertising and promotions were also reported by the general
population respondents in interviews; specific concerns were that these attracted
vulnerable people, including problem gamblers and young people, provided inducements to
gamble, negatively impacted on watching sports, normalised betting, and misled
consumers. These themes are similar to those described in the Joint Select Committee on
Gambling Reform (JSCOGR) report on interactive and online gambling and gambling
advertising (JSCOGR, 2011), the advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport
(JSCOGR, 2013) and the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy (DBCDE) review of the IGA (DBCDE, 2013a).
The interviews with interactive gamblers were also similar to the public sentiment
expressed in the media during the course of this project. In May 2013, then Prime Minister
Julia Gillard and then Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy announced a ban
on the promotion of live odds during sporting events (DBCDE, 2013b). Although this
announcement was made after the interviews and surveys were conducted, the media
coverage and public debate around the promotion of online wagering during sports
broadcasts may have influenced some responses. The live‐odds issue came to prominence
due to a perception of excessive advertising of sports betting (Nettleton, 2013). The results
from this project suggest that non‐interactive gamblers are more strongly opposed to such
promotions than interactive gamblers, but a significant proportion of interactive gamblers
also do not support such prominent advertising of this mode of gambling.
9.4.3 KNOWLEDGE OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING REGULATIONS
Although Australian interactive gambling regulation has been unchanged since 2001, few
actions have been taken to prevent offshore operators promoting products to Australians.
Few Australian interactive gamblers appear concerned about where a site is regulated or
whether it is legal. Nevertheless, interactive gamblers overall have a greater awareness of
what forms are legal and illegal than non‐interactive gamblers, almost half of the latter
being unsure of regulations. The majority of interactive gamblers were aware that sports
and race wagering was legal in interactive modes, although less than two‐thirds were aware
that lottery products are also legally available online. Interactive gamblers were significantly
more accurate in their awareness of the legality of these forms of gambling compared to
268
land‐based gamblers. However, interactive gamblers held significantly more inaccurate
beliefs that instant scratch tickets, keno and poker were legally available online in Australia.
Nonetheless, only a small proportion of both interactive and non‐interactive gamblers
indicated that they would be more likely to gamble if all forms of gambling were legal
through interactive modes. These results are consistent with the low levels of concerns
about the illegality of online gambling and suggest that interactive gambling regulations
have not been effectively communicated to consumers.
9.4.4 ERRONEOUS BELIEFS ABOUT GAMBLING
Both interactive and non‐interactive gamblers appeared to have relatively accurate
understandings of gambling and few erroneous beliefs. Interactive gamblers had fewer
erroneous beliefs on average than non‐interactive gamblers. Specifically, land‐based
gamblers had poorer understanding about the independence of chance events and the odds
of winning. Erroneous beliefs about gambling are relatively common amongst regular
gamblers, although they are also related to the development of gambling problems
(Joukhador, MacCallum, & Blaszczynski, 2003; Monaghan, Blaszczynski, & Nower, 2009).
Efforts to increase accurate understanding of gambling are important from a consumer
protection standpoint. Although the availability of accurate information about gambling is
important to enable informed choices, this information has limited utility as a responsible
gambling strategy (Monaghan & Blaszczynski, 2010).
9.5 GAMBLING BEHAVIOURS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
The study’s findings on the gambling behaviours of interactive gamblers are now discussed
in relation to their overall gambling participation, gambling activities, frequency and
expenditure, as well as for a sub‐group of professional interactive gamblers.
9.5.1 OVERALL GAMBLING PARTICIPATION
Both the online and telephone survey found that interactive gamblers engaged in
significantly more forms of gambling than land‐based gamblers. Total number of gambling
activities engaged in was a significant predictor of interactive gambling in the telephone
survey. This is consistent with previous Australian and international research showing that
interactive gamblers are likely to be highly involved gamblers who use multiple different
forms of gambling (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Griffiths et al., 2009; Wardle et al., 2011;
Wood & Williams, 2011).
A commonly cited concern in relation to regulated interactive gambling is the impact of
expanding online gambling access on the existing land‐based gambling industry (Gainsbury
& Wood, 2011). To date, international studies suggest that legalisation and regulation of
interactive gambling does not appear to generate large increases in interactive gambling or
overall gambling participation (Humphreys & Perez, 2012; Philander & Fiedler, 2012; Wardle
et al., 2011). This is the first national prevalence study of gambling conducted in Australia
269
since 1999 (Productivity Commission, 1999) and the first to specifically investigate the use of
interactive gambling. The results suggest that fewer Australian adults gambled in 2010‐2011
than in 1998‐99, representing a 21% decrease in annual gambling participation. However, as
interactive gamblers were notably more active gamblers than their land‐based
counterparts, the reduction in gambling participation is unlikely related to the increased use
of interactive modes.
9.5.2 GAMBLING ACTIVITIES
Ease of access allows participation in multiple types of gambling from one platform,
although it is not clear whether interactive gamblers engage in more forms of gambling due
to this access, or whether they seek out interactive gambling for this purpose. Longitudinal
studies are required to examine the causal relationship between interactive gambling and
participation in multiple forms. Analysis of a British gambling survey found that interactive
gamblers who engage in multiple activities, across various modes (including land‐based)
appear to be more likely to experience negative consequences from their gambling (Wardle
et al., 2011). The findings from this research related to different modes of access for
gambling are discussed below.
Results from the online survey found that participating in sports betting, horse and dog race
betting and poker were significant predictors of being an interactive gambler, while non‐
interactive gamblers were significantly more likely to use EGMs. A significantly higher
proportion of interactive gamblers also engaged in casino table games, keno, and betting on
games of skill compared to non‐interactive gamblers. The telephone survey found that
interactive gamblers were more likely to participate in all gambling activities, with the
exception of lotteries and instant scratch tickets. The most popular activities reported by
interactive gamblers in both surveys were horse or dog race betting and lotteries, followed
by sports betting, and instant scratch tickets and EGMs.
These results reflect both the traditionally popular gambling activities in Australia as well as
the increased accessibility of certain forms through interactive modes (Productivity
Commission, 1999). No difference was observed in the likelihood of interactive and non‐
interactive gamblers purchasing lottery tickets, which are legally available for purchase via
interactive modes in Australia. This suggests that the availability of this gambling activity
online has not substantially shifted participation in this mode of gambling, which is
consistent with international results (Humphreys & Perez, 2012).
In contrast, sports betting has dramatically increased in popularity in the past decade. Over
half of the interactive gamblers in the telephone survey engaged in this activity in the past
year and 13% of Australians bet on sports, compared to only 6% in 1998/9 (Productivity
Commission, 1999). The results from the online survey are consistent with previous
Australian research that indicates that interactive gamblers may be less likely to play EGMs
(Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012). However, this difference was not reflected in the results
from the telephone survey and both studies showed substantial levels of EGM play amongst
270
interactive gamblers. Further research is needed to investigate subgroups of interactive
gamblers based on their individual gambling preferences. Some of these differences are
discussed in the subsequent section on preferred modes of play.
9.5.3 GAMBLING FREQUENCY
Interpretations of data related to frequency and session length are limited in this study due
to the reliance on self‐report data from gamblers, so caution is needed when interpreting
these results. Interactive gamblers in the telephone survey reported engaging in sports and
race wagering, betting on games of skill, EGM play, keno and casino table games more
frequently than land‐based gamblers. These differences were based on medians given the
large variation in the reported data. The online survey also reflected more frequent use of
sports and race wagering as well as poker amongst interactive as compared to non‐
interactive gamblers. The legal availability of interactive wagering is likely related to the
greater frequency of participation of interactive gamblers in this activity. These specific
results do not distinguish between modes of use.
9.5.4 GAMBLING EXPENDITURE
As with gambling frequency, gambling expenditure was based on self‐report, which
introduces significant constraints in interpreting results. Research indicates that individuals
perceive and report gambling expenditure in different ways and that in general,
retrospective estimates of gambling expenditures appear unreliable (Wood & Williams,
2007). There was a large amount of variance in the reported figures for wins and losses in
both the telephone and online surveys. The results from this project cannot be extrapolated
to give an accurate estimation of total expenditure on interactive gambling in Australia.
Responses from both the telephone and online surveys indicate that the majority of
gamblers, including interactive gamblers, come out behind (lose money) on gambling in an
average month, which is to be predicted given the negative expected value of gambling.
Interactive gamblers in the telephone survey reported losing significantly more money on
lotteries, race wagering, and poker, compared to non‐interactive gamblers. One of the
significant predictors of being an interactive gambler in the telephone survey was losing
more money on gambling per year. These results are not specific to the amounts that
gamblers spent on online modes of gambling. However, the telephone survey indicated that
interactive gamblers spend more on gambling each year, which is not surprising given that
they are more involved gamblers in terms of frequency and modes of gambling used.
Despite these findings, interactive gamblers in the online survey were significantly more
likely to report being ahead on sports and race wagering and poker, compared to non‐
interactive gamblers, although they were more likely to be behind on EGMs. More than one‐
third of the interactive gamblers in the online survey reported that they were typically
ahead on poker, one‐quarter were ahead on sports betting, and almost one‐in‐four
reported typically being ahead on race wagering. These are all types of gambling where an
element of skill can play a role in gambling outcomes by informing betting strategies. The
271
difference in results between the telephone and online surveys may be related to
inaccuracies in self‐report, differences in the populations surveyed and methods of
recruitment and the survey format.
The median expenditures reported from the telephone survey indicate that most interactive
gamblers were spending moderate amounts on each form per month. This is consistent with
other studies on interactive gambling, although the medians reported from the telephone
survey are not directly comparable to average bet sizes (Gainsbury, Sadeque et al., 2012;
LaBrie et al., 2007; Russell & Gainsbury, 2012). Expenditure was highest for lottery tickets,
followed by race wagering, bingo and EGMs. Interactive gamblers reported being
significantly less successful in their poker and race wagering than non‐interactive gamblers.
Interactive modes of poker occur at a much faster pace than land‐based games and are
more readily available, which may provide more opportunities for players to gamble and
spend money on this form. However, as non‐interactive poker players must play against
others, and pay a fee or portion of their wins to casinos, it is difficult to understand how
more than half of all players could come out ahead. The greater losses reported by
interactive gamblers placing bets on races may suggest online betters are more active than
land‐based bettors, and hence spend more money on this form.
9.5.5 PROFESSIONAL GAMBLING
Previous research by this study’s authors found that a notable subset of interactive
gamblers consider themselves to be to be professionals and categorically different from
most players (Gainsbury, Hing et al., 2011). These players provided free responses indicating
that they were in control of their behaviour, their bets were informed and based on
research, and they were generally successful and gambled in a disciplined way. Few studies
have examined professional use of interactive gambling, although some research has
investigated differences between groups of poker players, including professional poker
players (Bjerg, 2010; McCormack & Griffiths, 2012b; Radburn & Horsley, 2011).
Two Australian studies of the betting patterns of online wagering customers show a small
proportion of gamblers are highly active in terms of the frequency and size of bets, have
more specialised betting patterns requiring more knowledge of bets and events, and have a
lower percentage of losses (Gainsbury, Sadeque et al., 2012; Russell & Gainsbury, 2012).
Some of these individuals made substantial wins, although many also experienced heavy
losses. Professional gamblers may be more likely to use interactive gambling due to the
convenience of access, ability to search for the best odds, bonuses and rewards (comps and
loyalty schemes), greater betting options and choices, privacy and comfort, as well as
quicker game speed.
Both the telephone and online survey found that interactive gamblers were more likely to
report that they considered themselves to be professional (2.9%, 2.1%) or semi‐professional
gamblers (7.0%). Approximately one‐quarter of the general population interactive gamblers
interviewed referred to themselves as professional gamblers. These individuals
272
characterised themselves as distinct from other players as they conducted, compiled and
analysed ‘research’ to inform their bets, kept detailed accounts of their bets, wins and
losses, and earned a living from interactive gambling. All these respondents were male, and
three‐quarters of them did not report negative consequences of gambling. Respondents
spoke about the mathematics and analyses required to understand margins and odds, and
several discussed recognising the difference between uninformed gambling (such as on
casino games or unresearched bets) and informed betting. Many appeared to enjoy the
intellectual challenge of mapping out odds and optimal betting strategies and all spent
considerable amounts of time doing this.
Further research is needed on cohorts of professional gamblers to provide a greater
understanding of the motivations of this subgroup of players and their specific use of
interactive modes of gambling.
9.6 GAME PLAY PREFERENCES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
The study’s results pertaining to the types of gambling websites used, preferred times and
localities for interactive gambling, and use of different payment methods and accounts are
discussed in this section.
9.6.1 TYPES OF GAMBLING SITES USED
Consistent with stated motivations for interactive gambling overall, price was the most
common factor cited by 42.8% of interactive gamblers in the online survey that influenced
the selection of an online gambling site. The preference for price included free credits and
bonuses, but advertising and marketing were only specifically reported as being influential
by 10.5% of interactive gamblers. This indicates that marketing efforts may play a role in
increasing consumer awareness of promotional offers, but lead to subsequent comparison
to others sites rather than being influential in isolation. Subsequent factors included a site’s
reputation (30.4%) and greater number of betting options (25.8%). Only 16.2% of
participants were specifically concerned with customer protection, although this may be
partially accounted for in the reputation of a site.
Results from the online survey indicated that the majority of Australian interactive gamblers
prefer to use domestically regulated sites, although for one‐third of interactive gamblers
this did not influence their choice of site. This is consistent with previous Australian studies
(Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012), with only a small proportion of gamblers stating that being
legally available (12.1%) or where a site is regulated (5.6%) is a concern for them. This
suggests that Australians are likely to use Australian sites if these are available, but only if
they meet other criteria for a preferred operator.
Of the interactive gamblers in the online survey who reported playing casino table games
online, the most popular game by far was blackjack. The second and third most popular
games were roulette and slot machines. Only a relatively small proportion of interactive
273
gamblers reported playing these games suggesting that a large proportion of Australians do
not use these. Only a minority of interactive gamblers bet on games of skill, most likely
involving card games. Research that specifically recruits interactive gamblers who used
these activities would provide further information about their use in Australia. State‐based
prevalence surveys indicate that less than 2% of Australian adults gamble through
interactive casinos (Queensland Government, 2012; Sproston, et al., 2012).
Just over half of the interactive gamblers in the online survey reported having only one
online gambling account, one‐fifth had accounts with two online operators, while the
remainder had multiple online accounts. These results are consistent with previous
Australian research and also with the stated preference of interactive gamblers to search for
the best available price between operators. Several respondents in the general population
interview sample reported creating multiple accounts with different operators to take
advantage of promotional offers, including ‘free’ credits.
9.6.2 PREFERRED TIMES AND LOCALITY
According to participants in the online survey, interactive gambling is most likely to occur
from individuals’ homes. Interactive gambling was most likely to be done in the evenings
and afternoons. These results are consistent with previous studies on interactive gamblers
(eCOGRA, 2007; Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; McMillen, 2004; Wood & Williams, 2010).
The timing and location of interactive gambling is consistent with the preferred use of
computers discussed below. It also reflects the advantages cited by interactive gamblers
related to the physical comfort of this mode of play, as well as the ease of access, lack of
unpleasant people, privacy and anonymity, and lower secondary costs, such as food and
petrol.
The reported duration of interactive gambling sessions varied greatly amongst participants
in the online survey making conclusions difficult. Players were most likely to report longer
poker sessions, which is unsurprising given that this activity is typically based on ongoing
games or tournaments. Similarly bingo and EGM online sessions were longer, which is
consistent with the ongoing, continuous play typical of these games. In contrast, sports and
race betting sessions were typically less than ten minutes, reflecting the short time required
to place bets on these activities. However, keno and casino table game sessions were also
short, suggesting that players may have used these activities on a relatively casual basis
rather than for continuous sessions of play. Again, conclusions regarding these data need to
be drawn with caution.
9.6.3 PAYMENT METHODS AND ACCOUNTS
Most interactive gamblers used a credit or debit card to fund their online gambling,
according to responses to the online survey. The next most popular payment method was a
direct bank transfer, although just under one‐fifth of interactive gamblers used the various
forms of ewallets when these are combined. Over one‐in‐ten (13.3%) interactive gamblers
274
surveyed reported that fast payout rates were an important factor when selecting sites to
gamble on.
Several interactive gamblers interviewed from the general population sample expressed
frustration at the poor identity verification required to deposit funds and gamble through an
online account. Some participants expressed concerns that this could enable underage
gambling, for example if minors had access to a parent’s credit card, which some
participants stated that they had done, with permission. Other participants discussed the
double standard of online operators allowing gambling without identity verification, but
requiring stringent measures before funds could be withdrawn.
9.7 MEDIUM PREFERENCES OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Only comparing interactive and non‐interactive gamblers without considering subsets of
interactive gamblers has limited many previous studies of interactive gamblers (Wardle et
al., 2011). As our knowledge of interactive gamblers is becoming more advanced, further
efforts are needed to identify subsets of this population. Thus, the online survey asked
interactive gamblers to indicate the extent of their overall gambling that was conducted
through interactive modes. Consistent with previous studies, the majority of interactive
gamblers are also land‐based gamblers (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Svensson, & Romild,
2011; Wardle et al., 2011; Wood & Williams, 2011). Over three‐quarters of interactive
gamblers reported using interactive modes for at least half of their gambling. Approximately
one‐fifth of the interactive gamblers gambled either entirely online, or mostly offline. The
greater reported comfort, ease of access and dislike of land‐based venues reported by some
gamblers likely reflect the views of a subset of interactive gamblers who may not gamble at
all if interactive modes were unavailable.
These are the first results that, to the knowledge of the authors, examine the proportion of
interactive gamblers who regularly use this mode and provide useful insights into how
gamblers engage in online and offline forms of gambling. Over two‐thirds of interactive
gamblers mostly use interactive modes for their gambling suggesting that the advantages of
online gambling sufficiently outweigh the advantages of land‐based modes. Consistent with
these results, when specifically asked which mode of gambling was the most preferable,
over half of all interactive gamblers stated that they favoured interactive modes.
Approximately three‐in‐ten participants in the online survey reported that they liked
interactive and land‐based modes equally.
Despite the advantages of interactive modes, a subset of interactive gamblers prefers land‐
based gambling. In comparison to interactive modes, 15% of interactive gamblers report a
preference for non‐interactive forms. A greater proportion (43%) of interactive gamblers in
the telephone survey reported that they do not prefer interactive modes of gambling. These
results indicate land‐based gambling venues still serve an important function for players.
The players are likely to be among those who use interactive gambling for only a minority of
275
their gambling and include the interactive gamblers who report that online modes have
disadvantages, such as being unsafe, unreliable and less enjoyable.
9.7.1 INTERACTIVE MODES USED FOR EACH GAMBLING ACTIVITY
Wagering on sports and races appears to be the two most popular online activities, based
on the number of gamblers who gambled on these activities via interactive modes as well as
the average reported usage in comparison to land‐based modes. That is, gamblers who used
interactive modes for betting were likely to use these modes for the majority of their bets.
This likely reflects the availability of online platforms and mobile applications for legal
wagering operators, who are permitted to advertise directly to Australian customers,
including promotional offers. Although most interactive gamblers indicated that
advertisements were not a central factor in choosing a site or gambling online, these factors
are likely integrated into the preferred availability, price and convenience of online
gambling as well as reputation of an operator.
Lotteries, the other legal form of interactive gambling, were the third most popular online
activity. Interactive lotteries were reportedly used by two‐fifths of all interactive lottery
players exclusively and accounted for on average two‐thirds of lottery ticket purchases. This
suggests that those who use this mode are generally satisfied, although some players
continue to purchase tickets at retail outlets in addition to their online play. The low use of
instant scratch tickets online is likely related to having to use an offshore operator, and may
also be related to the traditional use and purchase of ‘scratchies’ in convenient retail stores,
which may not translate as well as other forms to online purchases and use.
Poker is the fourth most popular online gambling activity, however, only one quarter of
those who used interactive modes for poker did so exclusively, indicating a substantial cross
over between online and land‐based forms. Around 40% of poker play on average appears
to still be done in land‐based venues, which suggests that for this gambling activity, the
advantages of interactive play do not always outweigh the advantages of land‐based
gambling. Similarly, gambling on casino table games generally accounted for only a
proportion of play, with interactive gamblers who engaged in this activity online also likely
to visit land‐based casinos.
Only a small proportion of interactive gamblers played EGMs online, and only a minority of
players solely used online forms of EGMs. Roughly half of EGM play was still done in land‐
based venues for those who used interactive modes of play, suggesting that the online
forms do not replicate the land‐based experience or satisfy all gamblers. Gamblers who use
interactive modes of bingo and keno appear relatively satisfied with the online services
provided by offshore providers, with only a minority of their gambling on this form being
conducted in land‐based venues. These, along with instant scratch tickets, appear to be the
least popular gambling activities to be done via interactive modes.
The difference in the proportion of gambling via interactive modes shows clear differences
in player preference for gambling activities and satisfaction with the online experience.
276
Activities with the greatest apparent satisfaction among interactive gamblers are sports and
race wagering, bingo, keno and betting on games of skill. These are all modes that are easily
adapted to electronic forms and have a low dependence on the venue experience. In
contrast, poker players appear to still gain satisfaction from land‐based venues, as do casino
table game and EGM players. This indicates that the interactive modes of these activities do
not replicate the land‐based experiences.
9.7.2 INTERACTIVE MEDIA
The majority of interactive gamblers in the online and telephone survey (86%/87%)
reported using their computer or laptop as their preferred mode of accessing interactive
gambling sites. This is consistent with previous Australian and international research
(Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Wood & Williams, 2010). Interview respondents were also
more likely to use computers for interactive gambling and cited software capabilities, larger
screen size, speed of access and greater security as driving a preference for this medium. As
the majority of interactive gamblers are likely to gamble from their homes, using a laptop or
computer is likely to be convenient. This is apparent through the interview responses where
participants indicated that their location would determine the medium they used to gamble
online. Websites also offer a greater amount of information, particularly in comparison to
simpler mobile apps and sites.
Approximately one‐tenth of interactive gamblers in the online survey reported a preference
for gambling via mobiles. Use of mobiles was largely related to convenience according to
the interview respondents. Mobiles allow bets to be placed from any location, without
delay. Less than 4% of interactive gamblers in the surveys reported using other portable
devices, such as tablets, as a preferred means of placing bets. The relatively low preference
for gambling via mobiles is somewhat surprising given the reported rise in the proportion of
bets placed by mobile devices by Australian wagering operators. For example, Tabcorp
reported that its mobile apps have been downloaded more than 900,000 times and mobile
wagering accounted for 43% of digital turnover (Tabcorp, 2013). The discrepancy in these
figures may suggest that although many interactive gamblers use mobiles and tablets to
place bets, the use of these devices is related to convenience rather to a preference for this
medium. This is apparent in the responses from interview participants, such as statements
that when gamblers are away from their home and if they are placing a simple bet, they will
use mobile and wireless devices. Due to their smaller screen, mobile apps and platforms
typically contain less information than a full website. This allows bets to be placed, but limits
the research and comparison that can be done between operators. The telephone survey
and interview results indicate that few Australians are using interactive televisions to place
bets and no participants reported using gaming consoles for gambling.
As indicated above, many interactive gamblers use multiple devices to place bets online.
Mobile and wireless devices also allow a second screen to be used to place bets when a
primary screen (typically a television) is being used to watch an event. Several interview
respondents commented that their mobile was generally within reach, which was
277
convenient, even if they were at home, to place a bet. The cross over between media used
to engage in interactive gambling is likely to continue as mobile apps and platforms become
more sophisticated and offer greater features and improved security (Gainsbury, 2012).
9.8 TRANSITION FROM TERRESTRIAL GAMBLING TO INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Uptake of interactive modes of gambling appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon. The
majority of interactive gamblers in the online and telephone surveys reported that they first
started gambling online in 2009 or later. Less than 10% of interactive gamblers started
gambling online prior to 2001, when the IGA was introduced.
Consistent with the advantages of interactive gambling reported above, convenience
appears to be the driving motivator for most interactive gamblers to start using this mode.
Similarly, better price as compared to land‐based modes was a key consideration for over
one‐third of interactive gamblers, followed by the comfort of gambling from home and ease
of access. Consistent with the reported attitudes towards marketing and promotions for
online gambling, this was only a motivating factor for 9% of interactive gamblers in first
initiating this activity. Of the three interview respondents who reported that their first
gambling experience was with interactive modes, they reported being influenced by the
availability of interactive forms as well as advertising and promotions, including through
televised shows. Several other interview participants reported becoming aware of
interactive gambling based on advertising and television, suggesting that promotions are
impactful for some players, which is consistent with reports from the online survey.
Given that most interactive gamblers are in middle‐adulthood, the reports from interview
participants that they first started gambling online after engaging in land‐based forms
seems unsurprising. However, only a minority (7.9%) of interactive gamblers who responded
to the online survey reported that having an existing account with a land‐based operator
was a key factor in their decision to gamble with a particular site. These results differ from
the reports of interview participants, who were most likely to report discovering interactive
gambling through their use of a land‐based operator although this discovery was related
most to seeing public advertisements in land‐based gambling premises. Reports from
previous Australian studies, and from gambling operators also suggest that many interactive
gamblers are customers transitioning from telephone and retail outlets. As many of the
Australian wagering operators are online only this may suggest that existing sports and race
bettors are moving online, but they may choose to bet with a different operator. Those
gambling on activities that are not legally provided would also be unlikely to be influenced
by an existing operator.
9.9 CURRENT PREVALENCE OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
One of the most significant changes to the gambling environment in the past 15 years has
been the increased availability of interactive gambling (Gainsbury, 2012; Wood & Williams,
2011). Several studies suggest that greater availability of gambling is related to participation
278
(Livingstone, 2001; Marshall, 2005; Productivity Commission, 1999; Wickwire et al., 2007).
To date, international studies suggest that legalisation and regulation of interactive
gambling does not appear to generate large increases in Internet gambling or overall
gambling participation (Humphreys & Perez, 2012; Philander & Fiedler, 2012; Wardle et al.,
2011). However, interactive gambling participation does appear to be increasing in many
international jurisdictions, and it is likely that legalisation and access to this mode of
gambling have contributed to this (Gainsbury & Wood, 2011). For example, the UK, which
has a very liberal gambling culture, has one of the highest interactive gambling participant
rates in the world, with 13% of adults reporting gambling online in the past year and
participation in sports betting increased from 3% in 1999 to 9% in 2010 (Wardle et al.,
2011). However, an estimated 2‐7% of adults in the United States also gamble online, which
has only recently been legally permitted in a handful of states and is actively restricted in
most of the country (American Gaming Association, 2010).
Based on the nationally representative results of the telephone survey, the past‐year adult
prevalence of participation in gambling in Australia in 2010/2011 was 64%. These results
show that fewer Australian adults gambled in 2011 than in 1999 (Productivity Commission,
1999), representing a 21% decrease in annual gambling participation. The preferred forms
of gambling, lottery, instant scratch tickets, race betting and EGMs, are consistent with
gambling patterns reported in 1999, although the current results indicate that annual
participation in race betting is now greater than EGM gambling. Participation in all gambling
activities decreased with the exception of sports betting which more than doubled in
popularity. The smallest decreases were observed for race betting and casino table games.
Changes in betting on poker and other skill games are not readily apparent due to the
differences in measures used between the studies.
Based on the telephone survey results, the past‐year adult prevalence rate of interactive
gambling in Australia in 2010/2011 was 8% and the estimated percentage of land‐based‐
only gamblers in the population was 56%. The prevalence of interactive gambling was
substantially higher than previous estimates and confirms reports of increased participation
through regulated and offshore sites. The greater gambling versatility demonstrated by
interactive gamblers suggests that the convenience and ease of access through the Internet
facilitates increased involvement in multiple forms of gambling, or alternatively, that
gamblers who use interactive modes are more likely to be more highly involved in gambling
activities already. It is likely that both these causal pathways are related to the prevalence
rates of interactive gambling in Australia.
Comparisons with other international jurisdictions are not straightforward due to
differences in research methodologies and survey time frames. However, based on
international prevalence surveys completed within the past few years, Australia has a
relatively high participation rate of interactive gambling, behind only the UK, Denmark, and
Sweden, and similar to Canada (Gainsbury, 2012). However, as demonstrated in the online
survey, the majority of interactive gamblers also engage in land‐based gambling, including
the types of gambling for which they also use interactive modes. Comparison with past
279
studies suggests that the proportion of Australians who are using interactive modes of
gambling is increasing, but only a minority of adults currently engage in this activity.
9.10 CURRENT PREVALENCE OF PROBLEM GAMBLING AMONG INTERACTIVE
GAMBLERS
Evidence suggests that there is a clear, albeit complex, relationship between increasing
availability of gambling opportunities and increased levels of related problems (Adams,
Sullivan, Horton, Menna, & Guilmette, 2007; LaPlante & Shaffer, 2007; Reith, 2012; Sevigny,
Ladouceur, Jacques, & Cantinotti, 2008; Storer, Abbott, & Stubbs, 2009; Welte et al., 2004).
Consequently, it has been asserted that interactive modes of gambling may lead to the
development or exacerbation of gambling problems due to the greater accessibility to
gambling opportunities that these modes provide (Gainsbury & Wood, 2011; Griffiths et al.,
2009).
Internationally, problem gambling prevalence rates range from 0.2% to 2.3% (Fong, Fong, &
Li, 2011; Petry, 2005; Productivity Commission, 2010; Shaffer, LaBrie, LaPlante, Nelson, &
Stanton, 2004; Wardle et al., 2011). The last national problem gambling prevalence survey
conducted by the Productivity Commission (1999), estimated that about 1% of adults
experience severe levels and 1.1% experience moderate levels of problems with their
gambling (Productivity Commission, 1999).
From the current study, the estimated percentage of problem gamblers in the adult
population was 0.6%. As different measurement instruments are used in the prevalence
surveys it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about changes over time and make
comparisons between results. However, the levels of problem gambling reported are similar
to previous prevalence estimates and international surveys, and suggest that the overall
prevalence of problem gambling appears to be relatively stable.
The telephone survey found that, among those who had gambled in the past year, nearly
one‐fifth reported at least some negative consequences from their gambling, including 6%
of all gamblers who reported moderate gambling problems. This represents a greater
proportion of Australian adults experiencing moderate levels of harm than in previous
surveys, although again, comparisons must be made with caution.
Based on the telephone survey, the overall problem gambling prevalence rate among
interactive gamblers was three times higher than the rate of gambling problems among
non‐interactive gamblers. Interactive gamblers were also more than twice as likely to be
classified as being at moderate risk of gambling problems and low‐risk gamblers, in
comparison to non‐interactive gamblers. The results of the online survey produced
somewhat discrepant results, interactive gamblers were approximately twice as likely to be
classified as low or moderate risk gamblers, based on the PGSI, than non‐interactive
gamblers, but there were no significant differences in rates of problem gamblers. These
findings are similar to results from a previous online survey of Australian gamblers
280
conducted by several of the authors of this report (Gainsbury, Hing et al., 2011). Interactive
gamblers had significantly higher problem gambling severity scores than non‐interactive
gamblers for both surveys, although the average PGSI score for interactive gamblers in the
online survey was lower than in the telephone survey, while similar average rates were
observed for non‐interactive gamblers.
Importantly, causation cannot be determined from these results. These findings indicate
that these forms of interactive gambling may be more attractive to those with gambling
problems, or possibly that in their interactive form they represent greater risk for the
development of gambling problems. As greater engagement in various gambling activities
was predictive of greater problem severity, these results may reflect the tendency for
interactive gamblers to be highly involved gamblers. The different methodologies used for
the surveys and recruitment methods are likely to have contributed to the differences in
problem gambling rates observed (Williams & Volberg, 2009; 2012). Due to the relatively
low number of interactive problem gamblers included in both samples, caution is warranted
in interpreting the results.
As mentioned above, the absolute number of individuals who gamble online and are
experiencing significant gambling problems is not great, and is much lower than the number
of Australians experiencing gambling harms unrelated to interactive gambling. This is also
reflected in the low proportion of individuals presenting for treatment for gambling
problems related to interactive gambling. However, the purpose of prevalence studies is not
to focus on the rates of problem gambling, which are already recognised as an important
public health issue (Shaffer et al., 2004; Young, 2013). Rather, epidemiological research now
needs to focus on the incidence of disordered gambling so that prevention efforts are
informed (Shaffer & LaPlante, 2013). Given the myriad of factors that are associated with
gambling problems, research is needed to identify areas where researchers and policy
makers should concentrate their efforts. This research demonstrates that interactive
gambling is an important factor to be included in developing prevention and treatment
policies as gamblers who engage in this activity have some unique characteristics.
9.10.1 GAMBLING FORMS CONTRIBUTING MOST TO GAMBLING PROBLEMS
It is widely accepted that different gambling activities pose variable risks, with factors such
as bet continuity, rapidly determined outcomes, high stake size, betting with credits, high
accessibility and availability, perception of skill, captivating lights and sounds, and gambling
environments with few distractions, contributing in various measures to the ‘addictive’
potential of gambling activities (Breen & Zimmerman, 2002; Delfabbro & King, 2012;
Dowling, Smith, & Thomas, 2005). Research shows that EGMs appear to be particularly
related to gambling problems with approximately 80% of people presenting for gambling
treatment reporting problems with this form of gambling, while 15% of regular EGM players
are estimated to be problem gamblers (Productivity Commission, 2010). Consequently, a
large proportion of public health strategies have focused on this gambling activity.
281
Results from the online survey found that moderate risk and problem gamblers who
engaged in interactive gambling were most likely to report problems relating to race
wagering, followed by EGMs and sports betting. In comparison, moderate risk and problem
gamblers who did not engage in interactive gambling were most likely to report problems
with EGMs. Due to the low numbers of moderate risk and problem gamblers included in the
telephone survey caution is required in interpreting results from this sample. However, both
interactive and non‐interactive gamblers in this sample reported problems being most likely
related to EGMs. Similarly, interactive gamblers appeared more likely to report problems
related to sports and race wagering as well as poker, than non‐interactive gamblers.
These results are consistent with previous studies in finding that EGMs have a strong
relationship with gambling problems. This suggests that these games may have structural
characteristics that represent greater risk for problems among gamblers. The findings are
also consistent with previous Australian research finding that problem interactive gamblers
were more likely to gamble on sports than problem land‐based gamblers (Gainsbury,
Russell, Wood et al., 2013). Causation cannot be determined from these results, which in
isolation do not specify the mode through which the problematic gambling activity was
conducted.
Information provided from the various state‐based treatment services demonstrated that
interactive modes of gambling are responsible for a minority of gambling problems in
Australia for which formal treatment is sought. This is consistent with reports from problem
and moderate risk gamblers in the telephone and online surveys. The information provided
from treatment agencies is not representative of all problem and moderate risk gamblers, as
only a minority of those with gambling problems seek help, and of those who do, not all
seek help through gambling help services. However, the information is consistent with
reports that gamblers who attribute their problems to interactive gambling may have less
severe gambling problems, as indicated by the difference in gambling‐related consequences
described below.
9.11 COMORBID MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE
Problem gamblers experience high levels of comorbid mental health problems, including
depression, anxiety and substance use disorders (Hodgins, Stea, & Grant, 2011; Lorains,
Cowlishaw, & Thomas, 2011). Studies have also found higher rates of smoking and alcohol
consumption, as well as substance abuse or dependence, among interactive as compared to
non‐interactive gamblers (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; Griffiths et al., 2009; Wood &
Williams, 2010). However, the relationships between interactive gambling, gambling
problems and other mental health issues are still unclear.
Greater psychological distress predicted gambling problems in the telephone survey, which
may reflect greater psychological comorbidities that contribute to gambling as a means of
coping or escape, or distress caused by experiencing gambling problems. Interactive
gamblers had higher rates of psychological distress than non‐interactive gamblers in both
282
surveys. Furthermore, experiencing higher levels of psychological distress was predictive of
being an interactive gambler in the online survey. However, the scores did not reach
clinically significant levels indicating that, on average, gamblers were not experiencing
significant comorbid mental health issues at the time of the survey. Further investigation of
psychological distress in the online survey found that a greater proportion of interactive
gamblers attributed their symptoms to their gambling and reported other negative
consequences related to their gambling, such as life being less enjoyable, having difficulty
controlling their gambling, preoccupation with gambling and gambling to escape worries.
Similarly, interactive gamblers were more likely to attribute some interpersonal problems
and difficulties in performing at work to their gambling as well as financial problems. These
results are likely related to the greater levels of problem gambling severity reported by
interactive as compared to non‐interactive gamblers and were not specifically related to
interactive modes of gambling. Several interview participants discussed how they used
interactive gambling to cope with isolation, boredom, depression, anxiety and poor social
support, demonstrating the relationship between psychological distress and problematic
gambling.
Non‐interactive gamblers were more likely to report some gambling‐related consequences
that are arguably more serious than those reported by interactive gamblers, including a
major relationship breakup, losing contact with children, changing or losing their job,
declaring bankruptcy and loss of savings. These reports are not surprising given the known
significant negative consequences of problem gambling on individuals, their families and the
community (South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, 2005). As non‐interactive
gamblers were most likely to report problems related to EGMs, these results may suggest
that this gambling activity accounts for the most substantial gambling‐related harms in
Australia. However, as stated previously, causality cannot be determined from these cross‐
sectional studies.
Results from the telephone survey found that interactive gamblers had higher rates of
tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use than non‐interactive gamblers. However, interactive
gamblers in the online survey were significantly less likely to consume alcohol when
gambling. Furthermore, interactive gamblers in the online survey were less likely to drink
alcohol and smoke when gambling interactively than when doing so in land‐based venues,
indicating they were unlikely to be using interactive modes to avoid smoking restrictions.
Higher rates of drinking alcohol when gambling in venues may indicate that alcohol
availability or social norms may increase intake during gambling, despite the capacity for
unrestricted consumption during interactive gambling in private settings. As illicit drug use
was a significant predictor of having greater levels of gambling problems, this may indicate
that problem gamblers are also more likely to use illegal drugs and develop substance use
problems, as well as having a greater propensity for risky behaviour, although causality
cannot be determined. Conversely, those who are at risk for gambling problems may engage
in a range of risk‐taking behaviours, for example due to high levels of impulsivity or affective
dysregulation (Leeman & Potenza, 2012).
283
9.12 CONTRIBUTION OF INTERNET GAMBLING TO PROBLEM GAMBLING IN
INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
In both the online and telephone surveys, participation in interactive gambling did not
significantly predict greater problem severity, suggesting that other factors make a greater
contribution to gambling problems.
Results from the online survey found that interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers
were most likely to attribute their gambling problems to interactive forms, with
approximately half citing computer‐based online gambling as the central cause of problems.
However, approximately one‐third of interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers
reported that their problems were related to land‐based gambling, which was the gambling
medium cited by the majority of land‐based moderate risk and problem gamblers.
Respondents in the telephone survey were similarly more likely to cite interactive modes as
contributing to their problems if they were classified as interactive gamblers; however, over
half of the interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers in the telephone survey
reported their problems being related to land‐based gambling. A small proportion of non‐
interactive gamblers reported that they had problems relating to interactive forms. This may
suggest that some moderate risk and problem gamblers may have gambled online prior to
the past 12 months, or that they inaccurately responded to an earlier question.
Similarly to the results provided from the telephone and online surveys, information
provided from the treatment agencies indicated that interactive modes of gambling
contribute to only a small proportion of clients who seek help. Although treatment‐seeking
gamblers are not representative of the population of moderate risk and problem gamblers,
these results confirm the findings from the other surveys showing that participation in
interactive gambling does not currently seem to be sufficient to cause widespread gambling
problems.
To address the question of the contribution of interactive gambling to problems, moderate
risk and problem gamblers in the telephone and online surveys were asked about the
timeframes for the development of problems. Both surveys were consistent with just over
half of moderate risk and problem interactive gamblers reporting that they had experienced
gambling problems before they ever gambled online. For these participants, the majority
either disagreed that interactive gambling had exacerbated their problems, or neither
agreed nor disagreed. One‐third of interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers in the
telephone survey who had problems before they first gambled online stated that interactive
gambling had exacerbated their problems, which was reported by only 21% of equivalent
respondents in the telephone survey. Similarly, around one‐third of the interactive gamblers
in the treatment‐seeking sample described a gradual, but not complete, progression from
land‐based to interactive modes of gambling. For these players, their gambling had
increased as a result of greater engagement with interactive modes. Several of these
participants reported experiencing wins early on, which encouraged them to continue to
gamble online.
284
These findings suggest that a substantial proportion of those who have gambling problems
and engage in interactive gambling had existing problems that were unrelated to online
gambling. Of these problem and moderate risk gamblers, interactive gambling largely did
not exacerbate their problems. Taken with the results from the most problematic gambling
forms, these players are likely to include those who reported their problems were
predominantly related to land‐based venues and EGM gambling. These problematic EGM
players may also engage in interactive modes of gambling, but EGMs continue to be the
central cause of their problems. For some interactive gamblers in the treatment‐seeking
interview sample, interactive gambling was a way for them to continue to gamble, but in a
less problematic way as their problems were related to EGMs. Others reported that they
could bet on some types of online gambling sites, but avoided others and land‐based venues
where they tended to lose control.
For those interactive gamblers who stated that they developed problems after they first
gambled online, a substantial proportion of these participants, in both the online (47%) and
telephone survey (88%), were likely to agree that interactive modes of gambling contributed
to these problems. These participants likely represent those who stated interactive modes
of gambling were the most problematic, which may also be related to the use of interactive
modes of race and sports wagering. Of the 31 treatment‐seeking respondents interviewed,
only three stated that their first experience of gambling was with interactive modes. These
participants reported starting interactive gambling based on the experiences of friends and
because it was legally accessible. For these participants, their gambling quickly became
excessive and was related to the constant accessibility and continuous betting possible. The
features of interactive modes of gambling that contribute to problems are discussed below.
9.12.1 PREDICTORS OF INTERACTIVE PROBLEM GAMBLERS
The online and telephone survey results were analysed to identify characteristics that
statistically predicted greater problem gambling severity among interactive gamblers. The
intent of these analyses was to ascertain whether interactive problem gamblers have
particular risk factors, which may or may not be similar to risk factors that have been
recognised in relation to non‐interactive gambling.
Both approaches used found that males, younger interactive gamblers and non‐English
speakers were more likely to have higher PGSI scores. The online survey found that married
interactive gamblers had lower levels of gambling problems. The telephone survey found
that interactive gamblers who believe the harms outweigh the benefits of gambling are
more likely to be experiencing gambling problems and the online survey found those with
greater levels of gambling problems had higher levels of psychological distress.
In terms of gambling behaviour, the online survey found that wagering on sports, races and
games of skill as well as poker and EGM gambling was predictive of greater problem
gambling severity among interactive gamblers. The telephone survey found that greater
285
gambling participation was related to higher gambling problems among interactive
gamblers.
Comparisons of moderate risk and problem interactive and non‐interactive gamblers enable
further insight into the impacts of interactive modes of gambling on related problems.
Analysis of the online survey found that moderate risk and problem interactive gamblers
were more likely to be younger, male and married in comparison to moderate risk and
problem non‐interactive gamblers. Similarly to the predictors of problem gambling severity
amongst interactive gamblers, moderate risk and problem interactive gamblers were more
likely to bet on sports and races as well as poker, as compared to non‐interactive gamblers.
In contrast, non‐interactive moderate risk or problem gamblers were significantly more
likely to bet on electronic gaming machines, drink alcohol while gambling and have higher
levels of psychological distress compared to interactive moderate risk and problem
gamblers.
The information provided from treatment agencies presents a similar profile of gamblers
reporting problems associated with interactive modes. Treatment‐seeking interactive
gamblers were mostly males, aged between 18 and 39 years. The most common forms of
problematic gambling reported by this cohort were sports betting and race wagering.
These results are consistent with previous surveys of Australian gamblers (Gainsbury, Wood
et al., 2012; Gainsbury, Russell, Hing et al., 2013). Younger gamblers are not only more likely
to engage in Internet gambling, but are also more likely to experience significant problems.
This is consistent with previous research identifying young adults (aged 18‐29) as the age
cohort most at‐risk for gambling problems in Australia (Productivity Commission, 2010).
These results may indicate that interactive gambling facilitates problem gambling amongst a
potentially vulnerable population. Subsequently, use of interactive gambling amongst young
adults is an area that warrants further attention. Being married was related to lower levels
of gambling problems among interactive gamblers overall, however, married interactive
gamblers were more likely to have problems than married non‐interactive gamblers. The
mixed findings in relation to being married as a protective and risk factor require further
investigation.
Non‐English speakers also had elevated rates of interactive gambling problems, which is
similar with previous Australian and New Zealand research showing higher rates of gambling
problems among culturally and linguistically diverse groups (Clarke et al., 2006; McMillen,
Marshall, Murphy, Lorenzen, & Waugh, 2004; Productivity Commission, 2010; Raylu & Oei,
2004). These results may suggest that cultural factors are related to a likelihood of gambling
excessively, that certain features of interactive gambling are particularly problematic for
culturally diverse populations, or that gambling is used to manage negative emotions
related to immigration and cultural displacement (Currie et al., 2012; McMillen et al., 2004;
Stevens, Golbebiowska, & Morrison, 2010).
The results also suggest that the problematic impact of multiple gambling activities, rather
than specifically engaging in interactive gambling, may be related to negative consequences
286
of gambling for interactive gamblers. This is consistent with previously reported findings
that overall gambling involvement is related to problem gambling severity (Holtgraves,
2009; LaPlante et al., 2009; Philander & MacKay, 2013). Several participants in the
treatment‐seeking sample reported that the ability to bet on multiple gambling activities
online increased their gambling to excessive levels. As discussed above, sports and race
wagering, as well as poker appear to be related to gambling problems amongst interactive
gamblers. Participants in the treatment‐seeking sample discussed how in their interactive
forms, sports betting was so easily accessible and provided many options, that they
increased their gambling as a result of the ability to be able to continuously place bets at
any time of the day. Similarly, interactive gamblers reported that the multiple options for
poker meant that they could always find a table to play on. Treatment‐seeking interactive
gamblers also described how the speed of play and lack of limits made online forms of
gambling more problematic than their land‐based counterparts. As wagering and poker are
widely used in their interactive forms, particularly in comparison to EGMs, these may
represent important targets for consideration in terms of their contribution to gambling
problems.
As participation in interactive gambling appears to be relatively recent and increasing, it is
possible that related problems might increase over time with increased participation in this
activity. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that interactive
gambling is causing higher levels of gambling problems. It is likely that the higher levels of
gambling problems found amongst interactive gambling are indicative of more intense
gambling activity, which may be facilitated by interactive, as well as land‐based modes.
Further investigation and consideration of conceptual models is required to determine
whether the causal pathway to the development of gambling problems differs between
interactive and non‐interactive gamblers.
9.12.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLING THAT CONTRIBUTE TO PROBLEMS
Although causality of gambling problems cannot be determined from this study, each stage
included consideration of how interactive modes of gambling may contribute to problems.
Amongst the general population interview respondents, one in four reported that their
interactive gambling had increased over time and of these over half were experiencing some
gambling‐related problems.
The disadvantages to interactive gambling reported by participants in the online survey
demonstrates that some of the features that make this mode of gambling advantageous,
may also represent risks. Specifically, 15% reported that interactive gambling was more
addictive than land‐based forms. Several interview participants from the general population
sample reported specifically taking actions to reduce their interactive gambling due to
realising the extent of their gambling and the negative consequences. For example, some
respondents indicated that they had established exclusions or limitations from gambling
sites due to their inability to control their gambling. Some interactive gamblers in the
treatment‐seeking sample discussed their mixed opinions about interactive gambling; many
287
of these participants enjoyed the activity, and reported that it had initially been a positive
experience. However, most discussed how their interactive gambling had gotten out of
control resulting in financial problems, isolation, psychological issues and relationship
difficulties.
Availability, convenience, and ease of access
One‐fifth of interactive gamblers in the online survey reported that this mode of gambling
was too convenient, and that this was a significant disadvantage in comparison to land‐
based gambling. Results from both the telephone and online surveys found that for a
notable minority of gamblers, interactive gambling disrupted sleeping and, to a lesser
extent, eating patterns. Several respondents in interviews indicated that the constant
accessibility and ease of access led them to gamble more often than when they had to visit a
physical venue to gamble. This included gambling on an increasing number of activities and
betting on a greater number of events. Using a mobile or other wireless device was
specifically mentioned as contributing to excessive gambling as these made gambling
constantly and easily accessible, reducing barriers when the urge to bet struck. The
availability of information online allowed some gamblers to learn more about different
types of gambling and betting fields, leading to increased betting.
Numerous participants in both the general population and treatment‐seeking samples
discussed that the convenience of interactive gambling, combined with isolation and
boredom, contributed to their problematic gambling. Several participants in the treatment‐
seeking sample had mobility constraints that made it difficult for them to visit gambling
venues. This suggests that isolation, mental health issues, loneliness, and poor social
support may be risk factors for problematic online gambling. However, some interactive
gamblers in the treatment‐seeking sample also discussed how their interactive gambling
had led to social isolation, demonstrating the bi‐directional effect of interactive gambling on
social support and levels of psychological distress. Several participants in the treatment‐
seeking sample noted that their problems were related to EGMs. For these individuals, they
gravitated to online gambling when they couldn’t visit venues or returned from visiting
venues.
The impact of electronic funds, online accounts and gambling with credit
The majority of interactive gamblers in the telephone and online survey reported that using
electronic means to gamble (e.g., credit cards and money transfers) had no impact on the
amounts they were spending. However, a substantial minority (17% in the telephone survey
and 12% in the online survey) reported that the use of electronic funds increased their
spending. These results are of obvious concern given that greater gambling expenditure is
associated with gambling problems (Wood & Williams, 2011). Results from the online survey
found that 31% of interactive gamblers reported that it was easier to spend money online,
which was cited as a disadvantage to this mode of gambling.
Explaining these results, interactive gamblers interviewed in the general population sample
reported that having an account with funds made it very easy for them to gamble further,
288
particularly if they were encouraged through email notifications of upcoming events such as
lottery draws and promotions. Several participants stated that once they accessed their
account they tended to bet more money than intended. Other participants reported losing
track of their expenditure during sessions as gambling online with ‘numbers on a screen’ is
often not perceived as representing real money. Various responses from both problem and
non‐problem gamblers, clearly demonstrated that gambling with digital currency has lower
psychological value than cash and could lead to spending more than intended (Corney &
Davis, 2010; Griffiths, 2003; McCormack & Griffiths, 2012a). Numerous respondents in both
interview samples discussed how they gambled many times the amount online than they
would have in venues and that compared to cash, virtual currency was extremely easy to
spend and lose track of.
Greater expenditure was also attributed to the ease of being able to deposit money
repeatedly into an account, through automatically linked credit or debit cards and bank
accounts, reducing any ‘cooling off’ period that gamblers may have. Several gamblers
expressed concerns that the ease of depositing funds into an online gambling account
increased opportunities to chase losses. Some players directly compared the access to credit
with having to visit an ATM in a gambling venue and see an account balance, or being able
to leave a card at home, which were methods gamblers could use to limit their expenditure
in land‐based venues that were not possible online. Similarly, when wins are deposited
automatically into an online account, rather than being transferred to an external account,
this increased the likelihood of gamblers spending this money.
Numerous participants interviewed expressed concerns regarding the provision of credit by
online operators, including low and high risk gamblers. Participants stated that the ability to
apply for credit was clearly advertised on gambling sites, which was viewed as inappropriate
as there were no measures to test whether this would be affordable for customers and may
be enticing for problem gamblers. Related to this were concerns about the ability to use
credit cards to deposit funds into accounts, which enabled customers to gamble on credit,
resulting in debts. Several participants in the treatment‐seeking interview sample reported
having accumulated thousands of dollars of debt through various means of credit that was
easily available to them.
Privacy and anonymity
As also found in previous research (Gainsbury, Wood et al., 2012; McCormack & Griffiths,
2012a; Williams, Wood et al., 2012), the privacy and anonymity of interactive gambling was
reported to be a risk factor by several participants in the general population interview
sample. Participants stated that, compared to a land‐based venue where other customers or
staff members may intervene, gambling online at home had no safeguards to prevent
excessive play. This led to lower levels of guilt or perceived accountability and stigma,
including for the time spent gambling, total amount gambled and size of bets. The
anonymity of gambling online made both problem and non‐problem players feel more
comfortable in continued gambling than participants felt they would be if gambling in the
same manner in a venue. Several participants in the treatment‐seeking sample also
289
reported that the privacy of interactive gambling allows them to play without others to
influence them and helped them to hide their gambling from family members. Participants
also noted that the absence of scrutiny from others meant that they also did not have to
acknowledge their behaviour and this facilitated their denial of problems and continued
gambling. These responses indicate that the presence of other people in venues was a
protective factor for many gamblers, even if other people did not directly intervene, as it
made gamblers more aware of and conscious of risky and excessive gambling.
Related to the privacy of gambling from home, several interview participants discussed the
negative influence of alcohol when gambling online. Although interactive gamblers overall
appeared less likely to consume alcohol when gambling, and this was more characteristic of
land‐based moderate risk and problem gamblers, clearly some individuals gamble when
intoxicated. Interview participants described how the availability of interactive gambling
may result in individuals gambling when drunk, chasing losses and betting more than
intended. Several participants in the treatment‐seeking sample also described how
gambling by themselves often led them to have dissociative experiences where they lost
awareness of time and what they were doing. This is similar to reports from problematic
EGM players (Diskin & Hodgins, 1999).
Advertising and promotions for online gambling
Numerous respondents in the general population interview sample reported seeking out
promotional offers that matched their deposits or bets, which were considered ‘free’ bets. A
small number of participants in the treatment‐seeking sample also had positive views of
promotional offers, which were viewed as a chance to win extra money or as a legitimate
marketing device. Promotional offers of credit generally have terms and conditions that
require funds to be gambled multiple times and are made based on considerations that
ongoing promotions will likely lead to ongoing betting. The play‐through required was
specifically noted by some of the treatment‐seeking interactive gamblers as a mechanism
used by operators to increase gambling and encourage ongoing deposits and continued
play. Although some respondents in the interview samples did not indicate that these offers
increased their betting, others indicated that promotions often led them to place bets they
would not have otherwise. In these cases, some gamblers reported that their frustration at
losing the bets may result in them chasing losses. Other participants reported spending
more of their own money in an effort to gain additional credit and through the
requirements to gamble with these offers.
Frequent email promotions were also mentioned by general population interactive
gamblers as contributing to individuals gambling more than intended, including emails for
wagering and lottery operators such as notification of upcoming events with suggestions
and reminders for bets. Several participants expressed concerns that promotions and offers
were intentionally used by operators to unduly induce customers to bet more than intended
and particularly targeted vulnerable individuals, including those with gambling problems.
Concerns about email and pop‐up online advertisements were widely voiced by participants
in the treatment‐seeking interview sample. These were viewed as excessive and predatory
290
as they were often displayed when individuals were pursuing unrelated online activities. At
least one participant in the treatment‐seeking sample reported significant difficulties in
opting out of promotional emails and closing his account.
This study’s findings are somewhat at odds with previous research (Binde, 2009), which
suggested that advertising of online gambling advertising aims primarily to attract
customers from competitors rather than to induce new users to try a new gambling activity
or old customers to gamble more. While the current study found that some participants
seek the best bonuses by shopping around amongst competitors, it also found that
advertising is reported to increase overall gambling consumption. While prior studies of
gambling advertising have generally concluded that it has a marginal impact on gambling
behaviour and problem gambling (Binde, 2007, 2009; Mizerski & Mizerski, 2001; Mizerski,
Miller, Mizerski, & Lam, 2004), the current study suggest that this impact may be different
for Internet gambling. Research is needed to confirm this and to determine whether any
differences are due to the nature of the online gambling environment, the characteristics of
Internet gamblers or the nature and extent of the advertising.
Distinction from land‐based forms
Several of the ways in which interactive modes of gambling are different from their land‐
based counterparts have already been discussed. Many of these were described by the
interactive gamblers in interviews; online gambling sites provide easy access to a wide range
of gambling options, and bet types, which often led gamblers to increase their gambling
participation across and within gambling activities. Unlike land‐based venues, particularly
for poker and wagering, there was no need to wait for the next table or event to bet on, as
international operators offered continuous betting, making these types of gambling more
continuous than traditional forms. Interactive gamblers also described how the speed of
interactive gambling was considerably quicker than in land‐based venues, which led to
losing money quickly and placing more bets. The speed also reduced the time that they had
to consider their bets. Online gambling sites also have few limits on the amounts that can be
bet, unlike land‐based venues. Some participants described being able to bet $25 per line on
EGMs and thousands on races or sporting events, losing money very quickly as a result.
9.13 HELP‐SEEKING AND RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING
9.13.1 HELP‐SEEKING BEHAVIOURS OF INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
Despite the severe negative consequences of gambling and comorbid health and mental
health issues, few problem gamblers (less than 10%) seek help from professional sources
(Evans & Delfabbro, 2005; Gainsbury, Hing, & Suhonen, 2013; Suurvali, Hodgins, Toneatto, &
Cunningham, 2008). The availability of resources and tools to assist players to gamble
responsibly was not a priority for most interactive gamblers. Only 4.2% of interactive
gamblers who participated in the online survey stated that access to responsible gambling
tools and resources was important to them when selecting an online gambling site.
291
However, a small proportion (5.8%) did state that the lack of responsible gambling measures
available was a specific disadvantage to interactive gambling as compared to land‐based
forms.
Both the telephone and online survey found that around three‐quarters of moderate risk
and problem gamblers had not considered seeking help in relation to their gambling.
Interactive moderate risk and problem gamblers in the online survey were significantly less
likely to report having sought help in comparison to non‐interactive gamblers, with only
one‐fifth of interactive gamblers reporting having sought help. The rates of help‐seeking
were much lower in the online survey than those reported by respondents in the telephone
survey, with approximately two‐thirds of moderate risk and problem gamblers reporting
that they had sought help for their gambling. The rates of help‐seeking reported by those in
both surveys are much higher than those found in an international sample of interactive and
non‐interactive gamblers (Wood & Williams, 2011). However, the international study did
not specifically include self‐help options and informal support, which are the most popular
help‐seeking strategies used by Australian gamblers in the telephone survey.
A greater proportion of non‐interactive gamblers had used self‐help strategies in the online
survey, although this was also one of the most likely help‐seeking actions of interactive
gamblers, as well as using informal sources such as family and friends, rather than formal or
professional sources of help. Similarly, self‐help was the most popular option reported by
gamblers in the telephone survey. This is consistent with findings from a recent study of
Australian gamblers (Gainsbury, Hing et al., 2013; Hing, Nuske, & Gainsbury, 2012) which
found that problem gamblers were reluctant to seek help due to a desire to solve the
problem on their own and experienced significant barriers related to denial of problem
severity. These reasons for using self‐help strategies were also reported by interactive
gamblers in the treatment‐seeking sample.
In addition to help from informal sources, moderate risk and problem gamblers in the online
survey also reported using more formal help‐seeking strategies including using a gambling
helpline, a face‐to‐face gambling counsellor and self‐exclusion from a land‐based venue.
Only a minority of participants reported self‐excluding from an interactive gambling site.
Approximately half of the participants in the treatment‐seeking sample reported challenges
in seeking help for their gambling problems. Several discussed having to wait a long time for
an appointment to see a gambling counsellor, that services were not helpful or meeting
their needs, and the lack availability of appropriate support, particularly outside traditional
office hours. Some interactive gamblers also felt that their doctor, friends and family would
not understand what they were going through and be supportive.
Despite some negative experiences, the vast majority of interactive gamblers in the
treatment‐seeking sample reported that their experience with various formal and informal
help had been beneficial, at least to some degree. The most helpful features of their support
were noted to revolve around financial management, sharing experiences, increasing
personal control, being made accountable for their actions, and addressing problematic
292
behaviours. These features could be incorporated into formal support, such as talking with a
counsellor weekly, informal support, such as a peer‐to‐peer discussion forum or group, or
through friends and family, such as having money managed by a trusted person. Self‐help
strategies described by treatment‐seeking interactive gamblers included limiting spending,
getting rid of credit cards and using blocking software or self‐exclusion orders. Some
participants discussed the importance of combining support from various sources to
reinforce changes in behaviours. One‐third of the interactive gamblers in the treatment‐
seeking sample noted that online gambling websites and mobile platforms should provide
prominent and direct links to sources that can provide immediate help.
Some differences were observed between interactive and non‐interactive gamblers in terms
of their preferred mode of treatment‐seeking. Both groups in the online survey were most
likely to report using a face‐to‐face service to seek help as a preference. These results were
consistent with the telephone survey, although in this survey non‐interactive gamblers were
significantly more likely to prefer this mode of help‐seeking as compared to interactive
gamblers. Interactive gamblers in the online survey were more likely to report a preference
for seeking help from an online service, while non‐interactive gamblers were more likely to
use a telephone service.
Consistent with the finding that only around one‐quarter of moderate risk and problem
gamblers in the online survey had sought help for their gambling problems, over one‐third
reported that they would not seek help in the future. These findings confirm that many
gamblers experiencing harms are unlikely to seek help, particularly from a professional
source. Nonetheless, the results show the importance of providing a range of resources for
gamblers, including self‐help and professional support, as well as resources for friends and
family members of gamblers through online, telephone and land‐based modes to assist
those who are interested in being supported.
9.13.2 CONTROL STRATEGIES USED FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLING
Only a minority of interactive gamblers in the online survey reported that they looked for
the ability to set limits when selecting an interactive gambling site. Nonetheless, nearly two‐
fifths of the interactive gamblers interviewed in the general population sample reported
that they had limits in place for their online gambling, and the majority of these individuals
were experiencing some gambling‐related problems. Participants reported using formal
resources, including optional limits made possible by online operators, exclusion orders and
software to block access to online gambling sites.
However, most participants in the general population sample who set limits did this via
informal means. Some restricted their gambling to a certain portion of the funds in their
account or took steps to ensure that their accounts only had a limited amount that they
could access to gamble. Other participants reported setting monetary budgets for
themselves for a week, and relying on self‐control and discipline to stick to their budgets.
Gamblers categorised as low and high risk for gambling problems used these strategies.
293
However, several participants, the majority of whom were experiencing some gambling‐
related harm, reported that attempts to self‐limit their interactive gambling had failed.
Participants (from the general population sample) reported chasing losses, losing control
due to the ease of depositing and betting, gambling more than intended when drunk, and in
response to continuous email advertising.
Participants in the treatment‐seeking sample had a greater variety of responses in relation
to the control strategies they used. Many reported that strategies were not effective in the
peak of their gambling problems. Some gamblers, similar to the general population sample,
used informal limit setting. Participants reported aiming to withdraw funds at pre‐
determined intervals (such as after winning a certain amount) or to have dollar budgets in
mind for their bets or deposits; however, these were reported to be generally ineffective.
For example, several participants reported that they would install blocking software or place
limits on their accounts, but that these were always easy to get around, change or remove.
Several participants in the treatment‐seeking interview sample reported greater success
following using formal help resources. These participants had successfully enacted deposit
limits, excluded themselves from their online accounts, or installed blocking software.
Several of these participants noted that they had help from a friend or counsellor to assist
them in stopping or limiting their gambling. One participant reported that she had
successfully applied for her bank to stop her from transferring money into her online
account, which made her interactive gambling more easily controlled then her land‐based
gambling due to the availability of ATMs.
Little previous research has examined control strategies used by interactive gamblers. One
study of 25 British female Internet gamblers (Corney & Davis, 2010) identified control
strategies they used as playing single rather than multiple games, determining financial
limits and game strategies before commencement, staking small amounts, and not chasing
losses. Another study found that users of one online gambling site’s self‐limit deposit
feature tended to reduce their gambling activity overall (Nelson et al., 2008).
9.13.3 RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING MEASURES
Research has shown that Internet gamblers embrace certain responsible gambling
strategies, such as monetary limits and pop‐up messages, and consider them to be effective
in controlling problematic gambling (Auer & Griffiths, 2012; Gainsbury, Parke et al., 2013;
Monaghan, 2009; Nelson et al., 2008; Wood & Griffiths, 2008). Nevertheless, fewer than 4%
of interactive gamblers in the online survey reported that the availability of responsible
gambling tools and resources was an advantage of interactive gambling over land‐based
modes, however, only 6% reported that the lack of responsible gambling measures was a
disadvantage. Despite this seeming lack of regard for responsible gambling tools, 60% of
interactive gamblers in the general population interview sample and 68% of those in the
treatment‐seeking sample considered that interactive gambling requires more responsible
gambling measures than land‐based modes. The reasons provided to justify this opinion
294
included that there were no controls or limits on expenditure online, which combined with
the ease of accessing the sites, accounts and credit, meant that people could gamble
excessively.
Over half of those in the general population sample and two‐thirds of the treatment‐seeking
interactive gamblers interviewed reported they perceived interactive gambling sites did not
do enough to protect customers from harm. Several participants specifically stated that the
interactive gambling environment is not very responsible, although others considered that
interactive gambling was just like other modes of gambling and a combination of protection
measures and personal responsibility was necessary to reduce problems.
The responsible gambling strategies suggested by the interview participants that should be
offered by online operators included limits, warnings and information about seeking help,
removal of credit betting capabilities, and the identification of problematic players based on
account data. Treatment‐seeking interactive gamblers also suggested that there should be
limits on promotions, improved self‐exclusion options and information, and immediate and
more thorough identification checks. Suggestions for limits included limits on the number of
deposits per day (just one), as well as loss limits, and that limits should be automatically low,
and customers would have to demonstrate they could afford higher limits to have these
raised. Several participants commented that self‐exclusion options were too difficult to find
and implement, that these should be accessible through mobile platforms, and that
exclusion orders should be more difficult to reverse. Participants suggested that warning
signs and information about problem gambling and help available, including self‐exclusion
options, should be more noticeable. The use of intelligent messaging at key intervals, such
as before placing a bet or following a period of high betting activity, was suggested. Both
limits and messages were discussed in relation to the need for greater checks by the
gambling operator as to whether customers can to afford to gamble at high levels.
Despite these recommendations, participants acknowledged that gamblers could easily
avoid responsible gambling measures by gambling on multiple sites. Several participants
also stated that people could gamble excessively online and in land‐based venues and that
individuals had to take responsibility for their own gambling.
9.14 LIMITATIONS
Comparisons with previous surveys, including the 1999 Productivity Commission findings,
must be made with caution as different measures of problem gambling were used. The
Productivity Commission (1999) used an adapted version of the South Oaks Gambling
Screen (Lesieur & Blume, 1987) whereas the current study used the Problem Gambling
Severity Index (Ferris & Wynne, 2001) to estimate the prevalence of problem gambling in
the Australian adult population. Additionally, the current study’s sample size was more
constrained than is typical in prevalence studies as the main focus of the telephone survey
was on interactive gambling rather than problem gambling prevalence. Respondent
inclusion was limited to those who agreed to participate in this research and self‐report was
295
used to determine gambling participation and problem gambling severity. There is some
evidence that population prevalence rates of problem gambling are higher in face‐to‐face as
compared to telephone surveys (Williams & Volberg, 2009); however, this has not been
demonstrated in Australia. Nonetheless, it is possible that those who consented to
participation deviate from the general population in some way which could not be
controlled for.
Although the telephone survey asked 15,006 Australians about their gambling participation,
only 2,010 completed the entire survey, with results from this sub‐sample extrapolated to
the wider population. Given the low proportion of interactive gambling in the population, a
large number of people had to be included to ensure a sufficient sample of interactive
gamblers. The number of interactive problem gamblers included was insufficient to enable
detailed investigation of this subgroup. Furthermore, oversampling a particular population
may have biased the total sample included, although weighting was used to make the
sample as representative as possible.
Only landline telephones were included in the survey. Comparison of telephone survey
methodologies indicates that, although participants recruited via mobile phones who did
not have landlines were less likely to have gambled in the past year, they were more likely
to endorse some lifetime gambling problems than participants recruited through landlines
(Jackson, Pennay, Dowling, Coles‐Janess, & Christensen, in press). However, this previous
study did not find any significant differences between the populations of landline, mobile
and mobile phone only users on levels of interactive gambling (Jackson et al., in press).
Nonetheless, even if the problem gambler rates are several times higher among the mobile
phone only users not represented in these results, the very small number of people in these
groups relative to the general population means that only small adjustments would be
needed to account for these.
The online survey was conducted to gain a larger sample of interactive gamblers to allow
more detailed analyses of this sub‐group of gamblers. The sample was self‐selecting and
may have been biased due to the recruitment methods used. However, the online survey
data were weighted against key variables in the telephone survey, to make results as
representative as possible of the Australian adult population of gamblers.
Research indicates that individuals perceive and report gambling expenditure in different
ways and that in general, retrospective estimates of gambling expenditures appear
unreliable (Wood & Williams, 2007). The wording for questions on expenditure was based
on evidence suggesting optimal results. However, the sum of spend for each form of
gambling was only weakly correlated with overall reported spend, indicating that
participants are not very consistent at reporting their net wins and losses.
Limitations also apply to the qualitative aspects of this study. Our small purposive interview
samples limit the generalisability of the qualitative findings. However, qualitative research
does not aim to generalise, but instead seeks to reveal meaningful insights into how
experiences are understood in a given context and from a shared perspective. Qualitative
296
data can illuminate the dynamics of those experiences in context, in this case how people
interact with online forms of gambling and how using an interactive mode might influence
gambling behaviours and gambling problems.
Our qualitative research was also limited by the recruitment of only ten women interactive
gamblers for interviews, making it difficult to consider the findings in relation to the broader
population of female interactive gamblers. Future research could examine whether and how
women’s experiences of interactive gambling differ from men’s.
Additionally, self‐reported interview data, while providing rich, multi‐layered accounts of
human experiences, relies on participants’ selective and perhaps biased memories.
Nevertheless, qualitative research focuses on how people interpret and make sense of their
experiences and so self‐reported and retrospective accounts are appropriate for this
purpose.
Data from treatment agencies collected to estimate the proportion of interactive gamblers
amongst the broader population of people seeking help for a gambling problem did not
allow accurate estimates to be made. This was because of the varying bases used to
determine if clients were seeking help for a problem relating to their interactive gambling.
Some jurisdictions collect data on most problematic form of gambling, while others collect
main, preferred or primary form of gambling. One jurisdiction lists Internet gambling as a
separate type of gambling, so it is unclear whether an Internet sports bettor, for example,
would be classified as an Internet gambler, a sports bettor or both. Some jurisdictions do
not collect any data on mode of gambling for all types of help offered (face‐to‐face,
telephone, online) and one jurisdiction did not provide any data to the research team.
Additionally, clients could be counted more than once under current data collection
systems, first when they contact a helpline and again if they attend counselling. The
development of a nationally consistent client data set would resolve these inconsistencies
and enable an accurate count of interactive gamblers seeking treatment for a gambling
problem and allow comparisons across jurisdictions.
To overcome some of these limitations and further the understanding of interactive
gambling, ongoing research is needed. This is particularly important given that interactive
gambling is a relatively new mode of gambling, which is evolving in response to
technological capabilities, regulatory permissions, operator innovation and consumer
demand. One type of research which has become possible is the ability to analyse actual
gambling behaviour, through the use of customer accounts linked to a specific individual
(Gainsbury, 2011). Future studies should attempt to match consumer accounts with self‐
report surveys, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of individual profiles. Such
research would require collaboration with gambling operators to obtain the necessary data
and permissions to undertake the research. If the proportion of gamblers who present for
help related to interactive gambling continues to increase, clinical trials will need to
evaluate the effectiveness of existing treatment options for this population. Treatment in
use has been developed based on land‐based gambling problems, and may require
297
modifications to be suitable for interactive gamblers. There are a broad range of factors that
are relevant to the use and impact of interactive gambling which should be examined in
future research, including the role of the social and cultural environment. Finally, the
conceptual models of gambling which are currently used to drive policy, and prevention and
treatment strategies have also not considered interactive gambling. Research is needed to
determine whether interactive gamblers represent a new subgroup of gamblers, or whether
existing theories are adequate to understand this population.
9.15 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has discussed the findings of the first national study conducted to determine
who, what, when, why and how people are gambling using interactive technology in
Australia. The chapter has synthesised the results from the National Telephone Survey, the
National Online Survey, interviews with interactive gamblers from the general population,
interviews with treatment‐seeking interactive gamblers, and secondary data on interactive
gamblers using treatment services, and discussed them in relation to the extant literature.
The study makes an important contribution to understanding this growing mode of
gambling, motivations that underpin its use, the characteristics and behaviours of
interactive gamblers, their game play and medium preferences, and its prevalence and
contribution to gambling problems. As such, the study provides valuable and extensive
information to assist and inform policy developments and future research on interactive
gambling in Australia.
298
REFERENCES
Abbott, M.W., Volberg, R.A., & Rönnberg, S. (2004). Comparing the New Zealand and
Swedish national surveys of gambling and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 20(3), 237‐258.
Adams, G.R., Sullivan, A.M., Horton, K.D., Menna, R., & Guilmette, A.M. (2007). A study of
differences in Canadian university students' gambling and proximity to a casino.
Journal of Gambling Issues, 19, 9‐18.
AC Nielsen (2007). Final report prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in NSW – A
community survey 2006, NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, Department of
the Arts, Sport and Recreation,
http://orgr.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/rr_prevalence_gambling.pdf
Alexa (2013, July). Google Australia. Alexa: The web information company. Retrieved from
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/google.com.au#demographics
Allen Consulting Group (2003). Final report on issues related to commonwealth interactive
gambling regulation. Retrieved from
http://www.allenconsult.com.au/publications/download.php?id=286&type=pdf&file
=1
Allen Consulting Group, Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre and the Social
Research Centre (2011). Social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania.
Hobart: Tasmanian Government Department of Treasury and Finance.
Allen Consulting Group (2012). Research for the review of the Interactive Gambling Act
2001. Melbourne: Allen Consulting Group.
American Gaming Association (2006). State of the states 2006: The American Gaming
Association
survey
of
casino
entertainment.
Retrieved
from
http://www.americangaming.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/sos/aga‐sos‐
2006.pdf.
American Gaming Association (2010). State of the states 2010: The American Gaming
Association survey of casino entertainment. Washington D.C.: American Gaming
Association.
Andrews, G., & Slade, T. (2001). Interpreting scores of the Kessler Psychological Distress
Scale (K10). Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(6), 494‐497.
Auer M., & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most intense
online gamblers: An empirical study of gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling
Studies. DOI 10.1007/s10899‐012‐9332‐y.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). Internet activity, Australia (8153.0). Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/8153.0
Australian Lottery Blocs (2011). Submission to the Department of Broadband,
Communications and the Digital Economy, Review of the Interactive Gambling Act
299
2001. Retrieved from
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/online_gambling/2011_review_of_the_intera
ctive_gambling_act_2001/submissions_on_the_interim_report_for_the_review
Australian Lottery Blocs (2012). Response on the Interim Report of the review of the
Interactive Gambling Act 2001. Submission to the Department of Broadband,
Communications and the Digital Economy. Retrieved from
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/online_gambling/2011_review_of_the_intera
ctive_gambling_act_2001/submissions_on_the_interim_report_for_the_review
Australian Racing Board (2011). Submission to the Department of Broadband,
Communications and the Digital Economy, Review of the Interactive Gambling Act
2001.
Retrieved
from
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/online_gambling/2011_review_of_the_intera
ctive_gambling_act_2001/submissions_received_for_the_iga_review.
Australian Racing Board (2012). Australian racing fact book: A guide to the racing industry in
Australia.
Retrieved
from
http://www.australianracingboard.com.au/fact‐
book/ARB%20Fact%20Book%202012%20FINAL%20V04012013.pdf
Binde, P. (2007). Selling dreams‐causing nightmares? Journal of Gambling Issues, 20, 167‐
192.
Binde, P. (2009). Exploring the impact of gambling advertising: An interview study of
problem gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7(4), 541‐
554.
Bjerg, O. (2010). Problem gambling in poker: Money, rationality and control in a skill‐based
social game. International Gambling Studies, 10(3), 239‐254.
Breen, R.B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine
gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18(1), 31‐43.
Brunelle, N., Leclerc, D., Cousineau, M.M., Dufour, M., Gendron, A., & Martin, I. (2012).
Internet gambling, substance use, and delinquent behavior: An adolescent deviant
behavior involvement pattern. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26(2), 364.
Carpenter, M. (2005, July 13). More women betting on online poker. Pittsburgh Post
Gazette.
Church‐Sanders, R. (2009). The global business of poker report: (3rd ed.). London: iGaming
Business.
Church‐Sanders, R. (2011). Online sports betting: A market assessment and outlook. London:
iGaming Business.
Church‐Sanders, R. (2013). Digital casinos: Market positioning and outlook (2nd ed.).
London: iGaming Business.
Church‐Sanders, R. (2013). The global business of poker (5th ed.). London: iGaming Business.
CLSA (2013). Mr & Mrs Australia: Adjusting to the new norm. Sydney: CLSA.
Corney, R., & Davis, J. (2010). The attractions and risks of Internet gambling for women: A
qualitative study. Journal of Gambling Issues, 24, 121‐139.
300
Cotte, J., & Latour, K. (2009). Blackjack in the kitchen: Understanding online versus casino
gambling. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 742‐758.
Currie, C.L., Wild, T.C., Schopflocher, D.P., Laing, L., Veugelers, P., & Parlee, B. (2012). Racial
discrimination, Post traumatic stress, and gambling problems among urban
Aboriginal adults in Canada. Journal of Gambling Studies, 1‐23.
Davidson, T., & Rodgers, B. (2010). 2009 Survey of the nature and extent of gambling, and
problem gambling, in the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra: Australian National
University.
Delfabbro, P. (2008). Australasian gambling review (3rd ed.). Adelaide: Independent
Gambling Authority.
Delfabbro, P. (2012). Australasian gambling review (5th ed.). Adelaide: Independent
Gambling Authority.
Delfabbro, P., & King, D. (2012). Gambling in Australia: Experiences, problems, research and
policy. Addiction, 107, 1556‐1561.
Delfabbro, P., Lahn, J., & Grabosky, P. (2005). Adolescent gambling in the ACT. Centre for
Gambling Research, Canberra: Australian National University.
Deloitte (2012). Optimal product fee models for Australian sporting bodies. Retrieved from
http://australianwageringcouncil.com/assets/docs/Deloitte_‐
_Optimal_Product_Fees_Report.pdf
Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) (2011).
Review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001: Call for submissions. Canberra:
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) (2013a). Final
report 2012: Review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. Canberra: Department of
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) (2013b).
Media release: Government achieves agreement to reduce the promotion of live odds
in sports broadcasts. Canberra: Department of Broadband, Communications and the
Digital Economy.
Diskin, K.M., & Hodgins, D.C. (1999). Narrowing of attention and dissociation in pathological
video lottery gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15(1), 17‐28.
Dowling, N., Jackson, A., Thomas, S., & Frydenberg, E. (2010). Children at risk of developing
problem gambling. Melbourne: The Problem Gambling Research and Treatment
Centre.
Dowling, N., Smith, D., & Thomas, T. (2005). Electronic gaming machines: Are they the
‘crack‐cocaine’ of gambling? Addiction, 100, 33‐45.
Dunlop, S.M., Perez, D., Cotter, R. (2011). Australian smokers' and recent quitters' responses
to the increasing price of cigarettes in the context of a tobacco tax increase.
Addiction, 106, 1687‐95.
Ebiquity (2012). Online betting snapshot. North Sydney: Ebiquity.
301
eCOGRA (2007). An exploratory investigation in the attitudes and behaviours of Internet
casino and poker players. Report commissioned by eCOGRA: Nottingham Trent
University.
eCommerce Report (2010, Feb 25). PayPal is Australia’s preferred payment method and 40%
of
Aussies
online
spend
is
overseas.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ecommercereport.com.au/paypal‐is‐australia%E2%80%99s‐preferred‐
payment‐method‐and‐40‐of‐aussies‐online‐spend‐is‐overseas/
Economist. (2012, June 4). Bedbetting. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/06/daily‐chart‐
0?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/bedbetting
Evans, L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2005). Motivators for change and barriers to help‐seeking in
Australian problem gamblers. Journal of gambling studies, 21(2), 133‐155.
Ferris J., & Wynne H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final report. Ottawa:
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Fiedler, I.C., & Rock, J.P. (2009). Quantifying skill in games: Theory and empirical evidence
for poker. Gaming Law Review & Economics, 13(1), 50‐57.
Fong, D., Fong, H.N., & Li, S.Z. (2011). The social cost of gambling in Macao: Before and after
the liberalisation of the gaming industry. International Gambling Studies, 11, 43‐56.
FRANk. (2013). Social media statistics Australia – June 2013. Retrieved from
http://frankmedia.com.au/2013/07/03/social‐media‐statistics‐australia‐june‐2013/
Gainsbury, S. (2010). Response to the Productivity Commission inquiry report into gambling:
Online gambling and the interactive gambling act. Gambling Research, 22(2), 3‐12.
Gainsbury, S. (2011). Player account‐based gambling: Potentials for behaviour‐based
research methodologies. International Gambling Studies, 11(2), 153‐171
Gainsbury, S. (2012). Internet gambling: Current research findings and implications. New
York: Springer.
Gainsbury, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (June, 2011). Invited submission to the Joint Select
Committee on gambling reform inquiry into interactive gambling. Retrieved from:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/gamblingreform_ctte/interactive_online
_gambling_advertising/submissions.htm
Gainsbury, S., Hing, N., Blaszczynski, A., & Wood, R. (2011). An investigation of Internet
gambling in Australia. Lismore, NSW, Australia: Southern Cross University, Centre for
Gambling Education & Research.
Gainsbury, S., Hing, N., & Suhonen, N. (2013). Professional help‐seeking for gambling
problems: Awareness, barriers and motivators for treatment. Journal of Gambling
Studies. DOI: 10.1007/s10899‐013‐9373‐x
Gainsbury, S., Parke, J., & Suhonen, N. (2013). Attitudes towards Internet gambling:
Perceptions of responsible gambling, consumer protection, and regulation of
gambling sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 235‐245
Gainsbury, S., Russell, A., Hing, N., Wood, R., & Blaszczynski, A. (2013). The impact of
Internet gambling on gambling problems: A comparison of moderate‐risk and
302
problem Internet and non‐Internet gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. DOI:
10.1037/a0031475
Gainsbury, S., Russell, A., Hing, N., Wood, R., Lubman, D., & Blaszczynski, A. (2013). How the
Internet is changing gambling: Findings from an Australian prevalence survey.
Advance online publication. Journal of Gambling Studies. DOI: 10.1007/s10899‐013‐
9404‐7
Gainsbury, S., Russell, A., Wood, R., Hing, N., & Blaszczynski, A. (2013). How risky is Internet
gambling? A comparison of subgroups of Internet gamblers based on problem
gambling status. Unpublished manuscript.
Gainsbury, S., Sadeque, S., Mizerski, R., & Blaszczynski, A. (2012). Wagering in Australia: A
retrospective behavioural analysis of betting patterns based on player account data.
Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, 6(2), 50‐68.
Gainsbury, S., & Wood, R. (2011). Internet gambling policy in critical comparative
perspective: The effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks. International
Gambling Studies, 11, 309‐323.
Gainsbury, S., Wood, R., Russell, A., Hing, N., & Blaszczynski, A. (2012). A digital revolution:
Comparison of demographic profiles, attitudes and gambling behaviour of Internet
and non‐Internet gamblers. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28, 1388‐1398.
Gambling Help Online (2012). Gambling Help Online: Annual report 2010–2011. Melbourne:
Gambling Help Online.
Gambling Research Australia (2010). Specification for interactive gambling, Tender number
107/10. Melbourne: Department of Justice.
GamCare (2010). We’re there when the odds are stacked against you: Annual review 2010.
London: GamCare.
Global Betting and Gaming Consultants (GBGC) (2010). Global gaming report (5th ed.).
Castletown, Isle of Man, British Isles: GBGC.
Global Betting and Gaming Consultants (GBGC) (2011). Global gaming report (6th ed.).
Castletown, Isle of Man, British Isles: GBGC.
Golding, D. (2012, Nov 16). Betting on video games: $23m won and lost on virtual pitch.
Crikey. Retrieved from http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/11/16/betting‐on‐video‐
games‐23m‐won‐and‐lost‐on‐virtual‐pitch/
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L., Compeau, L.D., & Levy, M. (2012). Retail value‐based pricing
strategies: New times, new technologies, new consumers. Journal of Retailing, 88(1),
1‐6.
Griffiths, M.D. (1999). Gambling technologies: Prospects for problem gambling. Journal of
Gambling Studies, 15(3), 265‐283.
Griffiths, M.D. (2001). Internet gambling: Preliminary results of the first U.K. prevalence
study: eGambling: Electronic Journal of Gambling Issues. Retrieved from
www.camh.net/egambling/issue5/research/griffiths_article.html
Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Internet gambling: Issues, concerns, and recommendations.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6, 557–568.
303
Griffiths, M.D., & Barnes, A. (2008). Internet gambling: An online empirical study among
student gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6(2), 194‐
204.
Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Internet gambling, player protection, and social responsibility. In: R.J.
Williams, R. Wood, & J, Parke (eds). Routledge International Handbook of Internet
Gambling (pp. 227‐249). Routledge: London.
Griffiths, M.D., & Parke, J. (2002). The social impact of internet gambling. Social Science
Computer Review, 20(3), 312‐320.
Griffiths, M.D., Wardle, H., Orford, J., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2009). Sociodemographic
correlates of Internet gambling: Findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence
Survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(2), 199‐202.
Griffiths, M.D., & Wood, R.T.A. (2000). Risk factors in adolescence: The case of gambling,
videogame playing, and the Internet. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 199–225.
H2 Gambling Capital (2011).Gambling goes mobile. London: H2 Gambling Capital.
H2 Gambling Capital (2013). There’s nothing virtual about the opportunity in real‐money
gambling. London: H2 Gambling Capital.
Halme, J.T. (2011). Overseas Internet poker and problem gambling in Finland 2007: A
secondary data analysis of a Finnish population survey. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, 28(1), 51‐63.
Henwood, D. (2011). Sports betting: The big picture. London: H2 Gambling Capital.
Hing, N., Nuske, E., & Gainsbury, S. (2012). Gamblers at risk and their help‐seeking
behaviour. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.
Hodgins, D. C., Stea, J. N., & Grant, J. E. (2011). Gambling disorders. The Lancet, 378(9806),
1874‐1884.
Holtgraves, T. (2009). Gambling, gambling activities, and problem gambling. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 23, 295‐302.
Hopley, A.A., & Nicki, R.M. (2010). Predictive factors of excessive online poker
playing. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4), 379‐385.
Howard, J. (2011). Australian racing fact book. Racing Information Services Australia.
Retrieved from http://www.australianracingboard.com.au
Hsu, D. (2010, Jun 30). Virgin: Betting big on head‐to‐head console gaming for cash (Q&A).
Venture Beat. Retrieved from http://venturebeat.com/2010/06/30/virgin‐betting‐
big‐on‐head‐to‐head‐console‐gaming‐for‐cash‐qa/
Humphreys, B.R., & Perez, L. (2012). Participation in Internet gambling markets: An
international comparison of online gamblers' profiles, Journal of Internet Commerce,
11, 24‐40.
IBM Corp (2011). IBM SPSS statistics for Macintosh, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Ibus Media Limited (June, 2011). Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling
Reform
Inquiry
into
Interactive
Gambling.
Retrieved
from
304
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/gamblingreform_ctte/interactive_online
_gambling_advertising/submissions.htm
iGaming Business (2011). Mobile gambling report: Opportunities for the industry. London:
iGaming Business.
Ipsos Reid (2005). Online poker in North America: A syndicated study. Retrieved from
www.ipsos‐na.com
Jackson, A., Dowling, N., Thomas, S., Bond, L., & Patton, G. (2008). Adolescent gambling
behaviour and attitudes: A prevalence study and correlates in an Australian
population. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 325‐352.
Jackson, A.C., Pennay, D., Dowling, N.A., Coles‐Janess, B., & Christensen, D.R. (in press).
Improving gambling survey research using dual‐frame sampling of landline and
mobile phone numbers. Journal of Gambling Studies. DOI 10.1007/s10899‐012‐9353‐
6
Johan, A. (2011, August 2). UK Gambling Commission releases new statistics. Gambling
Kingz. Retrieved from http://www.gamblingkingz.com/news/2011/08/02/uk‐
gambling‐commission‐releases‐new‐statistics.asp
Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform (JSCOGR) (2011). Interactive and online
gambling and gambling advertising. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform (JSCOGR) (2013). The advertising and
promotion of gambling services in sport. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Joukhador, J., MacCallum, F., & Blaszczynski, A. (2003). Differences in cognitive distortions
between problem and social gamblers. Psychological reports, 92(3c), 1203‐1214.
Juniper Research (2012). Mobile betting 2012‐2017. Hampshire: Juniper Research.
Kapcelovich, S. (2010). The provision and role of responsible gambling features in influencing
online gambling behaviour. Honours Thesis. Lismore: Southern Cross University
Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L., Hiripi, E., Mroczwk, D.K., Normand, S‐L.T., Walters, E.E.
& Zaslavsky, A.M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalence
and trends in non‐specific psychological distress, Psychological Medicine, 32, 959‐
976.
Kessler, R.C., Barker, P.R., Colpe, L.J., Epstein, J.F., Gfroerer, J.C., & Hiripi, E. (2003).
Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 60(2), 184‐189.
Kinnunen, J., Rautio, E., Alha, K., & Paavilainen, J. (2012). Gambling in social networks:
Gaming experiences of Finnish online gamblers. DiGRA Nordic 2012 Conference:
Local and Global‐Games in Culture and Society.
Koning, R, & van Velzen, B. (2009). Betting exchanges: The future of sports betting?
International Journal of Sport Finance, 4, 42‐62.
LaBrie, R.A., Kaplan, S.A., LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., & Shaffer, H.J. (2008). Inside the
virtual casino: A prospective longitudinal study of actual Internet casino
gambling. The European Journal of Public Health, 18(4), 410‐416.
305
LaBrie, R.A., LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., Schumann, A., & Shaffer, H.J. (2007). Assessing the
playing field: A prospective longitudinal study of Internet sports gambling
behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(3), 347‐362.
Ladd, G.T., & Petry, N.M. (2002). Disordered gambling among university‐based medical and
dental patients: a focus on Internet gambling. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 16(1), 76.
Lamont, M., Hing, N., & Gainsbury, S. (2011). Gambling on sport sponsorship: A conceptual
framework for research and regulatory review. Sport Management Review, 14(3),
246‐257.
LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., LaBrie, R.A., & Shaffer, H.J. (2009).Disordered gambling, type of
gambling and gambling involvement in the British gambling prevalence survey 2007.
European Journal of Public Health, 21(4), 532‐537.
LaPlante, D.A, Schumann, A., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. (2008). Population trends in Internet
sports gambling. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2399‐2414.
LaPlante, D.A., & Shaffer, H.J. (2007). Understanding the influence of gambling
opportunities: Expanding exposure models to include adaptation. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4), 616‐623.
Leeman, R.F., & Potenza, M.N. (2012). Similarities and differences between pathological
gambling and substance use disorders: a focus on impulsivity and
compulsivity. Psychopharmacology, 219(2), 469‐490.
Lesieur, H.R., & Blume, S.B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new
instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 144(9), 1184‐1188.
Levine, M. (2010). Current and future trends driving Australia’s gambling sector. Gambling
Reform Summit, June 9, 2010, Sydney.
Livingstone, C. (2001). Regional caps on poker machine numbers: Impacts, potential impacts
and issues. La Trobe: Australian Institute for Primary Care, La Trobe University.
Lloyd, J., Doll, H., Hawton, K., Dutton, W.H., Geddes, J.R., Goodwin, G.M., et al. (2010).
Internet gamblers: A latent class analysis of their behaviours and health experiences.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 387‐399.
Lorains, F. K., Cowlishaw, S., & Thomas, S. A. (2011). Prevalence of comorbid disorders in
problem and pathological gambling: systematic review and meta‐analysis of
population surveys. Addiction, 106(3), 490‐498.
Ly, C. (2010). An exploratory investigation of online gambling amongst University students in
Tasmania. Hobart, Tasmania: Department of Health and Human Services.
MacKay, T‐L. (2005, April). Betting on youth: Adolescent Internet gambling in Canada. Paper
presented at Discovery 2005, Niagra Falls, ON. Retrieved November from
www.responsiblegambling.org/articles/Terri_Lynn_MacKay_discovery_2005.pdf
Marshall, D. (2005). The gambling environment and gambler behaviour: Evidence from
Richmond‐Tweed, Australia. International Gambling Studies, 5(1), 63‐83.
306
Masters, R. (2011, Aug 3). Brash gamblers still think inside the box. Sydney Morning Herald.
Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/business/brash‐gamblers‐still‐think‐inside‐
the‐box‐20110802‐1i9xh.html
McBride, J. (2006) Internet gambling among youth: A preliminary examination. International
Centre for Youth Gambling Problems & High‐Risk Behaviors Newsletter, 6, 1.
McBride, J., & Derevensky, J. (2009). Internet gambling behavior in a sample of online
gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7(1), 149‐167.
McCormack, A., & Griffiths, M.D. (2012a). Motivating and inhibiting factors in online
gambling behaviour: A grounded theory study. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 10(1), 39‐53.
McCormack, A., & Griffiths, M.D. (2012b). What differentiates professional poker players
from recreational poker players? A qualitative interview study. International Journal
of Mental Health and Addiction, 10(2), 243‐257.
McCormack, A., Shorter, G.W., & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Characteristics and predictors of
problem gambling on the Internet. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction, 1‐24.
McMillen, J. (2004) Internet gambling – a research perspective. Presentation to the DCITA
Review of Issues Related to the Commonwealth Interactive Gambling Regulation,
July.
McMillen, J., & Woolley, R. (2003). Australian online gambling policy: A lost opportunity?
Paper presented at Pacific Conference on I‐Gaming, 24–6 February, Alice Springs.
McMillen, J., Marshall, D., Murphy, L., Lorenzen, S., & Waugh, B. (2004). Help‐seeking by
problem gamblers, friends and families: A focus on gender and cultural groups.
Canberra: Centre for Gambling Research (CGR), ANU.
McMullan, J.L., & Rege, A. (2010). Online crime and Internet gambling. Journal of Gambling
Issues, 24, 54‐85.
Mizerski, D., & Mizerski, K. (2001). The effect and implications for a stochastic pattern of
lotto game play. International Gambling Studies, 1, 132–149.
Mizerski, D., Miller, R., Mizerski, K., & Lam, D. (2004). The stochastic nature of purchasing a
state's lottery products. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(3), 56–69.
Monaghan, S. (2009) Responsible gambling strategies for Internet gambling: The theoretical
and empirical base of using pop‐up messages to encourage self‐awareness.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 202‐207.
Monaghan, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Electronic gaming machine warning messages:
Informative versus self‐evaluation. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied,
144(1), 83‐96.
Monaghan, S., Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2009). Do warning signs on electronic gaming
machines influence irrational cognitions? Psychological Reports, 105, 173‐187.
Monaghan, S., & Derevensky, J. (2008). An appraisal of the impact of the depiction of
gambling in society on youth. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,
6(4), 537‐550.
307
Monaghan, S., Derevensky, J., & Sklar, A. (2009). Impact of gambling advertisements on
children and adolescents: Policy recommendations to minimize harm. Journal of
Gambling Issues, 22, 252‐274.
Neal, P.N., Delfabbro, P.H., & O'Neil, M.G. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a
national definition. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.
Nelson, S.E., LaPlante, D.A., Peller, A.J., Schumann, A., LaBrie, R.A., & Shaffer, H.J. (2008).
Real limits in the virtual world: Self‐limiting behaviour of Internet gamblers. Journal
of Gambling Studies, 24, 463‐477.
Nettleton, J. (2013). Live odds and the wild, wild west of gambling advertising! Gaming Law
& Regulation, August 2013. Sydney: Addisons p.17‐20.
Nettleton, J., & Huang, M. (2013). Review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001: Implications
for Internet gambling in Australia. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 17(2), 129‐
133.
NetValue (2002). Europeans take a gamble online. NetValue Survey, June 2002. Retrieved
from www.nua.ie/surveys/analysis/weekly_editorial/archives/issue1no307.html
Nielsen Online (2008). The Australian Internet and technology report 2007‐2008. Edition 10,
February.
Nielsen Online (2010). The Australian Internet and technology report 2008‐2009. Edition 12,
February
Nielsen (2012, March). The Australian online landscape review. Retrieved from
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/au/en/reports/2013/nielsen‐au‐
online‐landscape‐review‐march‐2013.pdf
Online Casino Archives (2011, October 25). London based gambling group releases fiscal
figures. Online Casino Archives. Retrieved from
http://www.onlinecasinoarchives.com/sports/2011/10/25/london‐based‐gambling‐
group‐releases‐fiscal‐figures/
Online
Casino City (2013, August
http://online.casinocity.com/
24).
Online
Casino
City.
Retrieved
from
Olason, D.T., Kristjansdottir, E., Einarsdottir, H., Haraldsson, H., Bjarnason, G., & Derevensky,
J. (2011). Internet gambling and problem gambling among 13 to 18 year old
adolescents in Iceland. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9(3),
257‐263.
Owens Jr, M.D. (2010). If you can't tweet'em, join'em: The new media, hybrid games, and
gambling Law. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 14(9), 669‐672.
Petry, N.M. (2005). Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity and treatment.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Petry, N.M., & Weinstock, J. (2007). Internet gambling is common in college students and
associated with poor mental health. The American Journal on Addictions, 16, 325‐
330.
308
Philander, K.S, & Fiedler, I. (2012). Online poker in North America: Empirical evidence on its
complementary effect on the offline gambling market. Retrieved from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2021993
Philander, K.S., & MacKay, T. (2013). Online gambling participation and problem gambling
severity: A measurement error correction approach. Paper presented at the 15th
International Conference for Risk Taking & Gambling. Las Vegas, Nevada. Retrieved
from http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/gaming_institute/2013/.
Phillips, J.G., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Gambling and the impact of new and emerging
technologies and associated products. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.
Powell, C. (2011, Jan 21). Virgin gaming playing with EA sports worldwide. Marketing:
Advertising,
media
and
PR
in
Canada.
Retrieved
from
http://www.marketingmag.ca/news/media‐news/virgin‐gaming‐21601
Pring, C. (2012, Jan 11). 100 social media statistics for 2012. The social skinny. Retrieved
from http://thesocialskinny.com/100‐social‐media‐statistics‐for‐2012/
Problem Gambling Research & Treatment Centre (2011). Guidelines for screening,
assessment and treatment in problem gambling. Clayton: Monash University.
Productivity Commission (1999). Australia's gambling industries (Report No. 10). Canberra:
Ausinfo.
Productivity Commission (2010). Gambling, Report no. 50. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia.
Queensland Government (2012). Queensland household gambling survey 2011‐12. Brisbane:
Queensland Government.
Radburn, B., & Horsley, R. (2011). Gamblers, grinders, and mavericks: The use of
membership categorisation to manage identity by professional poker players.
Journal of Gambling Issues, 30‐50.
Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. (2004). Role of culture in gambling and problem gambling. Clinical
psychology review, 23(8), 1087‐1114.
Reichel, B. (2010, June). The future of interactive wagering. Gambling Reform Summit,
Sydney.
Reith, G. (2012). Beyond addiction or compulsion: The continuing role of environment in the
case of pathological gambling. Addiction, 107(10), 1736‐1737.
Roy Morgan Research (2013, May 3). Poker machine spend rebounds to $11 billion. Roy
Morgan OnlineStore.com. Retrieved from
http://www.roymorganonlinestore.com/News/Poker‐machine‐spend‐rebounds‐to‐
$11‐billion.aspx
Russell, A., & Gainsbury, S. (2012, November). A look inside the bed database of an online
betting agency. Paper presented at the National Association for Gambling Studies
22nd Annual Conference, Launceston, Australia.
Senate Information Technologies Committee (2000). Netbets: A review of online gambling
in Australia. Retrieved from:
309
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate_committees?u
rl=reports.htm.
Sévigny, S., Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., & Cantinotti, M. (2008). Links between casino
proximity and gambling participation, expenditure, and pathology. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 22(2), 295‐301.
Shaffer, H.J., LaBrie, R.A., LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., & Stanton, M.V. (2004). The road less
traveled: Moving from distribution to determinants in the study of gambling
epidemiology. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49, 504–516.
Shaffer, H.J., & LaPlante, D.A. (2013). Considering a critique of pathological gambling
prevalence research. Addiction Research & Theory, 21(1), 12‐14.
Sher, A. (2012, August). Mobile wagering forecast. Paper presented at Gaming, Racing &
Wagering Australia, Sydney.
Sher, A. (2013, August). Adapting to new technologies and the changing face of the digital
environment. Paper presented at Gaming, Racing & Wagering Australia, Sydney.
Siemens, J. C., & Kopp, S. W. (2011). The Influence of online gambling environments on self‐
control. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 279‐293.
Smeaton, M., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Internet gambling and social responsibility: An
exploratory study, CyberPsychology and Behaviour, 7(1), 49‐57.
Stevens, M., Golbebiowska, K., & Morrison, P. (2010). Correlates of reported gambling
problems in the CALD population of Australia. Melbourne: Office of Gaming & Racing,
Department of Justice.
South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (2008). Social and economic impact study into
gambling in Tasmania. Hobart: Department of Treasury and Finance.
South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, & the Department of Psychology University of
Adelaide (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition.
Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.
Sportingbet PLC. (2011). Annual Report 2011. London: Sportingbet Plc.
Sproston, K., Hing, N., & Palankay, C. (2012). Prevalence of gambling and problem gambling
in New South Wales. Sydney: Ogilvy Illumination.
Storer, J., Abbott, M., & Stubbs, J. (2009). Access or adaptation? A meta‐analysis of surveys
of problem gambling prevalence in Australia and New Zealand with respect of
concentration of electronic gaming machines. International Gambling Studies, 9,
225–244.
Suurvali, H., Hodgins, D., Toneatto, T., & Cunningham, J. (2008). Treatment seeking among
Ontario problem gamblers: Results of a population survey. Psychiatric Services,
59(11), 1343‐1346.
Svensson, J., & Romild, U. (2011). Incidence of Internet gambling in Sweden: results from
the Swedish longitudinal gambling study. International Gambling Studies, 11(3), 357‐
375.
Tabcorp (2007). Tabcorp achieves $1 billion in Internet wagering sales for first time.
Retrieved from: http://www.tabcorp.com.au/news_mediarel_detail.aspx?view=319.
310
Tabcorp (2008). Concise Annual report 2008, Melbourne: Tabcorp.
Tabcorp (2012, May 3). 3Q12 Trading update. Tabcorp Holdings Ltd. Retrieved from
http://www.tabcorp.com.au/investor‐centre_annual‐reports.aspx
Tabcorp (2013, Aug 9). Tabcorp 2013 full year results. Tabcorp Holdings Ltd. Retrieved from
http://www.tabcorp.com.au/news_media‐releases_detail.aspx?view=734
Tabcorp to drive online presence as Q1 revenues rise. (2011, October 12). Gaming
Intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.gamingintelligence.com/finance/13537‐
tabcorp‐to‐drive‐online‐presence‐as‐q1‐revenues‐rise
Tatts Group Ltd (2012). Annual report 2012. Melbourne: Tatts Group.
Telsyte (2011). Australian smartphone market study 2011‐2015. Sydney: Telsyte.
Toneatto, T., & Ladoceur, R. (2003). Treatment of pathological gambling: A critical review of
the literature. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(4), 284.
Turner, N.E. (2008). Games, gambling, and gambling problems. In Zangenah, M.,
Blaszczynski, A., & Turner, N. (eds). In the Pursuit of Winning: Problem gambling
theory, research and treatment (pp. 33‐64). New York, N.Y.: Springer.
Twoway Interactive Entertainment (2011, Jul 29). Cash flow statement and investor update.
Volberg, R.A., Nysse‐Carris, K.L., & Gerstein, D.R. (2006). 2006 California problem gambling
prevalence survey. Los Angeles, C.A.: California Department of Alcohol and Drug
Problems, Office of Problem and Pathological Gambling.
Wardle, H., Moody, A., Griffiths, M., Orford, J., & Volberg, R. (2011). Defining the online
gambler and patterns of behaviour integration: Evidence from the British Gambling
Prevalence Survey 2010. International Gambling Studies, 11(3), 339‐356.
Weibe, J. (2008). Internet gambling: Strategies to recruit and retain customers. Guelph:
Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
Welte, J.W., Barnes, G.M., Tidwell, M.C.O., & Hoffman, J.H. (2009). The association of form
of gambling with problem gambling among American youth. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 23(1), 105.
Welte, J.W., Wieczorek, W.F., Barnes, G.M., Tidwell, M.C., & Hoffman, J.H. (2004). The
relationship of ecological and geographic factors to gambling behaviour and
pathology. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(4), 405‐423.
Wickwire Jr, E.M., Whelan, J.P., West, R., Meyers, A., McCausland, C., & Leullen, J. (2007).
Perceived availability, risks, and benefits of gambling among college students.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(4), 395‐408.
Williams, V., Leighton, L.P., Parke, J., & Rigbye, J. (2008). British gambling prevalence survey
2007:
Secondary
analysis.
Retrieved
from
http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/BGPS%202007%20Secondary%20analy
sis%20%20‐%20Oct%202008.pdf
Williams, R.J., & Wood, R.T. (2004). The proportion of gaming revenue derived from
problem gamblers: Examining the issues in a Canadian context. Analyses of social
issues and public policy, 4(1), 33‐45.
311
Williams, R.J., & Volberg, R.A. (2009). Impact of survey description, administration format,
and exclusionary criteria on population prevalence rates of problem gambling.
International Gambling Studies, 9(2), 101‐117.
Williams, R.J., & Volberg, R.A. (2012). Population assessment of problem gambling: Utility
and best practices. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
Williams, R.J., West, B.L, & Simpson, R.I. (2012). Prevention of problem gambling: A
comprehensive review of the evidence and identified best practices. Guelph: Ontario
Problem Gambling Research Centre.
Williams, R.A., Wood, R., & Parke, J. (2012). History, current worldwide situation, and
concerns with Internet gambling. In R.A. Williams, R. Wood, & J. Parke. (Eds.)
Routledge international handbook of Internet gambling (pp. 3‐26). Routledge:
London.
Wood, R.T, Griffiths, M., & Parke, J. (2007) Acquisition, development, and maintenance of
online poker playing in a student sample. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 354‐361.
Wood, R.T. & Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Why Swedish people play online poker and factors that
can increase or decrease trust in poker web sites: A qualitative investigation. Journal
of Gambling Issues, 1, 80‐97.
Wood, R.T, & Williams, R. (2007). Problem gambling on the Internet: Implications for
Internet gambling policy in North America. New Media & Society, 9(3), 520‐542.
Wood, R.T, & Williams, R. (2010), Internet gambling: Prevalence, patterns, problems, and
policy options. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
Wood, R.T., & Williams, R.J. (2011). A comparative profile of the Internet gambler:
Demographic characteristics, game‐play patterns, and problem gambling status. New
Media & Society, 13(7), 1123‐1141.
Wood, R.T, Williams, R., & Lawton, P. (2007). Why do Internet gamblers prefer online versus
land‐based venues: Some preliminary findings and implications. Journal of Gambling
Issues, 20, 235‐252.
Wood, R.T., Williams, R.J., & Parke, J. (2012) The relationship between problem gambling
and Internet gambling. In Williams, R.J., Wood R.T., & Parke J. (eds), Routledge
International Handbook of Internet Gambling (pp. 200‐211). Routledge: London.
Woodruff, C. & Gregory, S. (2005). Profile of Internet gamblers: Betting on the future. UNLV
Gaming Research & Review Journal, 9, 1‐14.
Woolley, R. (2003) Mapping Internet gambling: emerging modes of online participation in
wagering and sports betting. International Gambling Studies, 3, 3‐21.
Young, M. (2013). Statistics, scapegoats and social control: A critique of pathological
gambling prevalence research. Addiction Research & Theory, 21(1), 1‐11.
312
APPENDICES
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix A: National Telephone Survey Instrument
Appendix B: Calculations for Age x Gender Weighting for the National Telephone
Survey
Appendix C: Organisations that Hosted Website Advertisements for the National
Online Survey
Appendix D: Examples of Recruitment Notices for the National Online Survey
Appendix E: National Online Survey Instrument
Appendix F: Interview Schedule for Interactive Gamblers
313
APPENDIX A
NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
314
INTERACTIVE GAMBLING STUDY
Good (…). My name is ………. from Reark Research and we are conducting an important national study
concerning some popular pastimes and leisure habits of Australians …
SECTION A: RESPONDENT SELECTION
A1
In this study, I can only speak to a person in this household who is 18 years of age or older and whose
birth date is closest to today’s date...who would that be?
(record name, ask to speak to selected respondent, record call-back details as necessary)
Respondent name (eg John, Mary) ………………………………………………………
Call-back information …………………………………………………………………….
A2
IF LOOKING FOR QUOTA: In this study, I can only speak to a (..MALE/FEMALE..) in this
household who is 18 years of age or older and whose birth date is closest to today’s date...who would that
be?
(record name, ask to speak to selected respondent, record call-back details as necessary)
A3
IF QUOTA FULL: Thank you but unfortunately our quota is now full. Thank you for your time anyway
(close suitably)
A4
IF NECESSARY: We are conducting this study on behalf of Southern Cross University and the
University of Sydney to assist government and other decision-makers to better understand the needs of
Australians.
A5
ONLY PROCEED WITH SELECTED RESPONDENT
I would like to assure you that participation is voluntary and you can stop at any time. All responses are
confidential and anonymous and it is extremely important that you please answer all questions as
honestly as possible.
A6
So we can classify your answers, can you tell me …. (If necessary: What is your gender?)
1.
2.
A7
Male
Female
In what year were you born? (specify) …………………………………………
IF YEAR OF BIRTH REFUSED, ASK: Into which of these age-groups do you fall … (read out)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
18 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 years or more
315
A8
Including yourself, how many persons aged 18 years or older usually live in this household?
________ persons
99 (Not established)
A9
And how many persons less than 18 years of age usually live here?
________ persons
99 (Not established)
A10 QUOTA LOCATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
SYDNEY
OTHER NSW
MELBOURNE
OTHER VIC
BRISBANE
OTHER QLD
ADELAIDE
OTHER SA
PERTH
OTHER WA
HOBART
OTHER TAS
DARWIN
OTHER NT
CANBERRA
A11 SUBSAMPLE NUMBER
Subsample 1
Subsample 2
Subsample 3
Subsample 4
Subsample 5
BRIEFING NOTE: IN THE SECTIONS TO FOLLOW WE HAVE PROVIDED ‘Don’t Know/Can’t say’ ‘Not
Established’ AND ‘Refused’ AS RESPONSE CODES … THESE CODES ARE NEVER TO BE READ OUT AND
USED ONLY IF ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.
SECTION B: RESPONDENT SCREENING QUESTIONS
I am going to read you a list of pastimes or leisure activities that you may, or may not, have done in the
last 12 months ... that is, since this time last year.
B1
In the last 12 months, have you, either at a venue, by phone or via the internet (..read out list item..)?
1 Yes
2 No
3 (Don’t know/can’t recall)
(repeat question and record response for each list item – randomise sequence)
List items
(1) purchased lottery, lotto, pools or instant scratch tickets?
316
(2) bet on horse or greyhound races or on a sporting event through a TAB, TOTE, betting operator or
bookie?
(3) played bingo or keno?
(4) played poker or games of skill for money, such as, backgammon, mah-jong, arcade games, puzzles,
board games?
(5) played gaming machines or casino table games?
(6) (None of these)
B2
ASK IF ‘(6) (None of these)’, ie RESPONDENT HAS NOT SAID ‘Yes’ FOR ANY LIST
ITEM (1) to (5) IN B1, OTHERWISE SKIP TO B3
a) That means you have done none of these pastimes or leisure activities in the past 12 months either in
person at a venue, by phone, or via the internet on a computer, mobile phone, interactive television or
some other device, is that correct?
1
2
Yes (Close suitably:
assistance.
No (Skip to B2b)
We have no further questions to ask you.
Thank you for your
b) Which of these pastimes or leisure activities have you done either at a venue, by phone or via the
internet in the past 12 months?
(If necessary: Was it (..read out..)?
List items
1 purchased lottery, lotto, pools or instant scratch tickets?
2 bet on horse or greyhound races or on a sporting event through a TAB, TOTE, betting
operator or bookie?
3 played bingo or keno?
4 played poker or games of skill for money, such as, backgammon, mah-jong, arcade games,
puzzles, board games?
5 played gaming machines or casino table games, either at a venue or on the Internet?
6 (Don’t know/can’t recall which) – (Close suitably: ‘We have no further questions to ask you.
Thank you for your assistance’)
B3
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ANY LIST ITEM (1) to (5) IN B1 or IN B2b)
In the last 12 months, have you used the Internet, via a computer, mobile phone, interactive television or
other device, to do any of the leisure activities that we just asked you about?
1 Yes (Skip to Section C)
2 No
3 Don’t Know
B4
IF ‘No’ or ‘Don’t Know’ IN B3, CHECK QUOTA CONTROL AND IF QUOTA
AVAILABLE SKIP TO SECTION C, OTHERWISE CLOSE:
We have no further questions to ask you. Thank you for your assistance. (close suitably)
Note: IF ‘Yes’ TO B3, RESPONDENT IS RETAINED IN SAMPLE. IF ‘No/Don’t Know’ TO B3
RESPONDENTS ARE RANDOMLY SAMPLED SO THAT TOTAL TO PROCEED TO NEXT
SECTION = 2,000 RESPONDENTS (= ALL WHO SAID YES TO B3, REMAINDER
RANDOMLY SAMPLED FROM IF ‘No/Don’t Know’ TO B3) … THAT IS n = 400 PER
SUBSAMPLE
317
SECTION C: GAMBLING BEHAVIOUR
C1
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (1) IN B1 or ITEM (1) IN B2b)
a) Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually purchased instant scratch tickets?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C2a)
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on instant scratch tickets
in a typical MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind, in a typical month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
c) ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of all your instant scratch ticket purchases was done
over the Internet … including through your mobile phone, television or other device?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
C2
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (1) IN B1 or ITEM (1) IN B2b)
a) Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually purchased lottery, lotto or pools tickets?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C3a)
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on lottery, lotto or pools
tickets in a typical MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical
month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
c) ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of all your lottery, lotto or pools ticket purchases was
done over the Internet …including through your mobile phone, television or other device?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
318
999
C3
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (2) IN B1 or ITEM (2) IN B2b)
a) Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually bet on sporting events through a TAB,
TOTE, betting operator or bookie?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C4a)
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on sports betting in a typical
MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
c)
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of your sports betting was done over the Internet …
including through your mobile phone, television or other device)
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
C4
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (2) IN B1 or ITEM (2) IN B2b)
a)
Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually bet on horse or dog races through a TAB,
TOTE, betting operator or bookie?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C5a)
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on horse or dog race
betting in a typical MONTH …that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical
month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
c)
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of your horse or dog race betting was done over the
Internet … including through your mobile phone, television or other device?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
319
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
C5
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (3) IN B1 or ITEM (3) IN B2b)
a)
Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually played bingo?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C6a)
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on bingo in a typical
MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
c)
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of your bingo playing was done over the Internet …
including through your mobile phone, television or other device?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
C6
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (3) IN B1 or ITEM (3) IN B2b)
a) Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually played keno (excluding electronic keno on
gaming machines)?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C7a)
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on keno in a typical
MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
c)
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of your keno playing was done over the Internet (If
not previously elaborated: including through your mobile phone, television or other device)?
320
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
C7
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (4) IN B1 or ITEM (4) IN B2b)
a)
Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually played poker for money?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C8a)
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on poker in a typical
MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
c)
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of your poker playing for money was done over the
Internet … including through your mobile phone, television or other device)?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
d)
Can’t say/Don’t know
What percentage of your poker playing for money was in a private venue or residence, but not over
the Internet?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
C8
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (5) IN B1 or ITEM (5) IN B2b)
a)
Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually played casino table games, not including
poker, such as blackjack, roulette, craps, or baccarat?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C9a)
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on these other casino table
games in a typical MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical
month?
321
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
c)
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of your casino table games play, not including poker,
was done over the Internet … including through your mobile phone, television or other device)?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
C9
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (4) IN B1 or ITEM (4) IN B2b)
a)
Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually played other games of skill for money … this
includes games such as backgammon, mah-jong, arcade games, puzzles, word games, trivia, board
games, strategy games, bridge or similar games?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C10a)
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on these other games of
skill in a typical MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical
month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
c)
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of your playing games of skill for money was done
over the Internet … including through your mobile phone, television or other device)?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
C10
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK IF ‘Yes’ FOR ITEM (5) IN B1 or ITEM (5) IN B2b)
a)
Over the last 12 months, how often have you usually played gaming machines, including pokies,
card machines and other gaming machines?
________ times per week OR
________ times per month OR
________ times per year
(If 0 times in the last 12 months, Go to C11a)
322
b) In the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on gaming machines in a
typical MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
c)
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ in B3: What percentage of your gaming machine play was done over the
Internet … including through your mobile phone, television or other device)?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
(0 – 100%) ________% (specify)
999
C11
Can’t say/Don’t know
ASK ALL RESPONDENTS
Thinking about the past 12 months, roughly how much money did you WIN or LOSE on all types of
gambling in a typical MONTH … that is overall … how much were you ahead or behind in a typical
month?
(If can’t say/don’t know, encourage best guess)
1
2
3
4
5
C12
Do you consider yourself to be a professional gambler?
1
2
3
C13
Yes
No
(Don’t Know/Can’t say)
In the past 12 months, have you played any gambling activities on the Internet without any money, that
is, just for fun?
1
2
3
C14
Ahead (WIN)
$_________ (specify)
Behind (LOSE)
$________ (specify)
Broke even/neither won nor lost
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
Yes
No (Skip to C15)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ IN C13
a) Which activities have you played in the past 12 months just for fun? (do not read out, record 1st, 2nd
and 3rd mentioned in order of mention)
b) If necessary: ‘Any others?’ (do not read out)
c) If necessary: ‘Any other activity?’ (do not read out)
Activity List
1
2
3
Instant scratch tickets
Sports betting
Horse or dog race wagering
323
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C15
Bingo
Keno
Poker
Casino table games
Gaming machines
Skill games _____________ (specify)
(No 2nd/3rd activity recalled/mentioned)
IF ‘Yes’ TO B3 CONTINUE TO SECTION D, OTHERWISE SKIP TO SECTION E - SCREEN
SECTION D: INTERNET GAMBLING
D1
What year did you first start using the Internet for gambling purposes?
Specify: ___________________
1 (Don’t Know/Can’t say)
D2
What is your preferred method for accessing the Internet for gambling? Is it (..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
99
D3
Do you prefer Internet gambling to land-based or telephone gambling?
1
2
3
D4
Had no impact on how much you gamble? (0)
Increased the amount you gamble? (1)
Decreased the amount you gamble? (2)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
How often, if ever, has online gambling disrupted your sleeping patterns? Would you say (..read out..)?
(rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
D6
Yes
No
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
Has using a credit card or electronic money transfer facilities instead of cash when gambling online
(..read out..)? (rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
D5
Computer/laptop
Mobile/smart phone
Some other portable device (e.g., iPad or similar)
Television
Other ____________(specify)
(Don’t Know/Can’t say)
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
How often, if ever, has online gambling disrupted your eating patterns? Would you say (..read out..)?
(rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
324
SECTION E: PROBLEM GAMBLING SEVERITY INDEX (PGSI)
SCREEN: IF C2a) AND C5a) SUM TO LESS THAN 52 TIMES PER ANNUM AND C1a), C3a), C4a), C6a),
C7a), C8a), C9a) AND C10a) ARE EACH ZERO ‘0’ TIMES IN LAST 12 MONTHS GO TO
SECTION G MENTAL HEALTH, OTHERWISE PROCEED.
I am now going to read some questions about the kinds of experiences some people may have,
which are related to their gambling. As I read out each statement, please tell me whether it has
applied to you personally in the last 12 months. Remember that all the information you provide is
anonymous and confidential, so I need your honest answers.
E1
Thinking about the past 12 months, how often have you bet more than you could really afford to lose?
Would you say (..read out..)? (rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
E2
Thinking about the past 12 months, how often have you felt guilty about the way you gamble or what
happens when you gamble? Would you say (..read out..)? (rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
E3
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
(Refused)
Thinking about the past 12 months, when you gambled, how often have you gone back another day to try
to win back the money you lost? Would you say (..read out..)? (rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
E5
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
(Refused)
Thinking about the past 12 months, how often have you needed to gamble with larger amounts of money
to get the same feeling of excitement? Would you say (..read out..)? (rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
E4
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
(Refused)
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
(Refused)
Thinking about the past 12 months, how often have you borrowed money or sold anything to get money
to gamble? Would you say (..read out..)? (rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
325
6
E6
(Refused)
Thinking about the past 12 months, how often has your gambling caused any financial problems for you
or your household? Would you say (..read out..)? (rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
E7
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
(Refused)
Thinking about the past 12 months, how often has your gambling caused you any health problems,
including stress or anxiety? Would you say (..read out..)? (rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
E8
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
(Refused)
Thinking about the past 12 months, how often have people criticized your betting or told you that you had
a gambling problem, regardless of whether or not you thought it was true? Would you say (..read out..)?
(rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
E9
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
(Refused)
Thinking about the past 12 months, how often have you felt that you might have a problem with
gambling? Would you say (..read out..)? (rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
E10
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t Know/Can’t Say)
(Refused)
SCREEN:
ADD DESIGNATED SCORES FOR QUESTIONS E1 TO E9.
• IF PGSI SCORE E1-E9 = 0, 1 OR 2, PROCEED TO SECTION G (MENTAL HEALTH)
• IF PGSI SCORE E1-E9 = 3 OR MORE, PROCEED TO SECTION F
SECTION F: CONSEQUENCES & HELP-SEEKING
F1
You are probably aware that some people experience problems related to gambling. We would like to ask
some questions that will provide important information about the potential impacts of gambling.
a)
Which type of gambling has contributed MOST to any problems you may have experienced from your
gambling? If necessary: Would it be (..read out..) (record 1st, 2nd and 3rd mentions in order of
mention -do not accept DK too easily)
b) Which is next or second (in importance)?
c) And what would be third (in importance)?
326
List of gambling types
1 instant scratchies
2 lotteries/lotto/pools
3 sports betting
4 horse/dog racing
5 bingo
6 keno
7 poker
8 skill games
9 pokies/electronic gaming machines
10 casino table games
11 other____________(specify)
12 (Don’t know/Can’t say)
13 (Have not experienced any problems with gambling (Skip to F6))
14 (None - No second/No third in importance)
F2
a)
What type of gambling medium has contributed MOST to any problems you may
have experienced from your gambling? If necessary: Would it be (..read out..) (record 1st, 2nd and
3rd mentions in order of mention - do not accept DK too easily)
b) Which is next or second (in importance)?
c) And what would be third (in importance)?
List of gambling mediums
1 Internet via computer/laptop
2 Internet via mobile/smart phone
3 Internet via other portable device
4 Interactive television
5 Land-based or venue-based gambling
6 Betting via telephone
7 (Don’t know/Can’t say)
8 (None - No second/No third in importance )
F3
ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ TO B3, OTHERWISE SKIP TO F6
Did any problems you may have experienced from your gambling emerge before or after you first
gambled online?
1
2
3
F4
ASK ONLY IF ‘Before’ IN F3:
How strongly do you agree or disagree that online gambling has exacerbated any problems you may have
experienced from your gambling? Would you say you (..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
F5
Before (1) (Go to F4)
After (0) (Go to F5)
(Don’t know/Can’t say) (Go to F6)
Strongly agree (+2)
Agree (+1)
Neither agree or disagree (0)
Disagree (-1)
Strongly disagree (-2)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
ASK ONLY IF ‘After’ IN F3:
How strongly do you agree or disagree that online gambling has contributed to any problems you may
have experienced from your gambling? Would you say you (..read out..)?
1
2
Strongly agree (+2)
Agree (+1)
327
3
4
5
6
F6
Neither agree or disagree (0)
Disagree (-1)
Strongly disagree (-2)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
CHECK E10 SCREEN: ASK IF PGSI SCORE E1-E9 = 3 OR MORE
Have you ever thought that you needed help in relation to your gambling?
1
2
3
F7
Yes
No
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
Have you ever sought help in relation to your gambling from the following sources (.. read out from
list..)? (record response for each item … randomise sequence of items)
Scale
1 Yes
2 No
List of help sources
1 Face-to-face from a specialist gambling counsellor
2 Face-to-face from a non-gambling specialist professional, including doctor, psychologist/psychiatrist,
financial, legal or other advisor
3 From a gambling helpline
4 From online or email gambling counselling
5 From a residential treatment program
6 From a face-to-face support group, such as Gamblers Anonymous or Pokies Anonymous
7 From an online support group or discussion board, such as an Internet forum
8 From family or friends
9 By excluding yourself from a land-based gambling venue or outlet
10 By excluding yourself from a gambling website or online gambling operator
11 Through self-help strategies, such as by budgeting, limiting access to money for gambling, avoiding
gaming venues, taking up other activities
F8
Some other source of help not mentioned?
1
2
F9
Yes, source of help___________(specify)
No
CHECK F7: ASK ONLY IF ‘Yes’ TO ANY OF SOURCES (1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) IN F7
In total, about how many times have you had contact with professional help services in relation to your
gambling?
________ times
98 (Don’t Know/Can’t say)
99 (Refused)
F10
If you were to seek help from a professional service in the future in relation to your gambling, where
would you be most comfortable seeking it from? Would you say (.. read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
a face-to-face service?
an online service?
a telephone service?
somewhere else? __________(specify)
or, would you not seek help from a professional service?
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
328
SECTION G: MENTAL HEALTH
G1
The next questions are about your health. Let me again reassure you that this survey is anonymous and
confidential. In the last 12 months, how often have you smoked cigarettes? Was it (..read out..) ?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
G2
Daily (5)
Several days per week (4)
Several days per month (3)
Once a month or less (2)
Only a few days all year (1)
Never (0) )
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
In the last 12 months, how often did you drink beer, wine, liquor or other alcoholic beverages? Was it
(..read out..) ?
1 4 to 6 days per week or more (7)
2 2 to 3 days per week (6)
2 Once a week (5)
4 2 to 3 days per month (4)
5 Once a month (3)
6 Less than once a month (2)
7 Never in last 12 months (1)
8 Never in lifetime (0)
9 (Don’t know/Can’t say)
10 (Refused)
G3
In the last 12 months, how often did you use illegal drugs? Was it (..read out..) ?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4 to 6 days per week or more (7)
2 to 3 days per week (6)
Once a week (5)
2 to 3 days per month (4)
Once a month (3)
Less than once a month (2)
Never in last 12 months (1)
8 Never in lifetime (0)
9 (Don’t know/Can’t say)
10 (Refused)
G4
In the last 12 months, have you used alcohol while gambling on the Internet? Would you say (..read
out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
G5
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3) )
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
In the last 12 months, have you used alcohol while gambling not on the Internet? Would you say (..read
out..)?
1
2
3
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
329
4
5
6
G6
In the last 12 months, have you smoked while gambling on the Internet? Would you say (..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
G7
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3) )
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
About how often during the past 30 days did you feel nervous, would you say (..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
G9
never (0)
sometimes (1)
most of the time (2)
almost always (3)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
In the last 12 months, have you smoked while gambling, but not on the Internet? Would you say (..read
out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
G8
almost always (3) )
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
All of the time (4)
Most of the time (3)
Some of the time (2)
A little of the time (1)
None of the time (0)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
During the past 30 days, about how often did you feel hopeless, would you say (..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All of the time (4)
Most of the time (3)
Some of the time (2)
A little of the time (1)
None of the time (0)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
G10 During the past 30 days, about how often did you feel restless or fidgety? Would you say (..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All of the time (4)
Most of the time (3)
Some of the time (2)
A little of the time (1)
None of the time (0)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
G11 During the past 30 days, about how often did you feel so depressed that nothing could cheer you up?
Would you say (..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
All of the time (4)
Most of the time (3)
Some of the time (2)
A little of the time (1)
330
5
6
7
None of the time (0)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
G12 During the past 30 days, about how often did you feel that everything was an effort?
(..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Would you say
All of the time (4)
Most of the time (3)
Some of the time (2)
A little of the time (1)
None of the time (0)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
G13 During the past 30 days, about how often did you feel worthless? Would you say (..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
All of the time (4)
Most of the time (3)
Some of the time (2)
A little of the time (1)
None of the time (0)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
(Refused)
SECTION H: DEMOGRAPHICS
Finally a few questions about you and the household in which you live so that we can classify the responses we
have obtained in this study …
H1
Which of the following best describes your current marital status? (..read out..)
1
2
3
4
5
6
H2
Which of the following best describes your household? (..read out..)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H3
married
living with partner/de facto
widowed
divorced or separated
never married
(Not established)
Single person
One parent family with children
Couple with children
Couple with no children
Group household
Other ________ (specify)
(Not Established)
What is your highest educational qualification? (..read out..)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Postgraduate qualifications
A university or college degree
A trade, technical certificate or diploma
Year 12 or equivalent
Year 10 or equivalent
Completed primary school
Did not complete primary school
No schooling
331
9
H4
Which of the following best describes what you currently do? (read out..)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
H5
No, English only
Yes, Italian
Yes, Greek
Yes, Cantonese
Yes, Arabic
Yes, Mandarin
Yes, Vietnamese
Yes, other __________ (specify)
(Not Established)
Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island origin? (do not read out allow free response )
1
2
3
4
H8
Australia
England
New Zealand
Italy
Vietnam
India
Scotland
Other ________ (specify)
(Not Established)
Do you speak a language other than English at home?
If Yes: Which language? (do not read out allow free response)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
H7
Work full-time
Work part-time or casual
Self-employed
Unemployed and looking for work
Full-time student
Full-time home duties
Retired
Sick or disability pension
Other (specify) ________________________________
(Not Established)
In which country were you born? (do not read out allow free response)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
H6
(Not Established)
No
Yes, Aboriginal
Yes, Torres Strait islander
(Not Established)
What is the post code of your usual place of residence?
________ postcode
99 (Not Established)
H9
Can you access the Internet in your household dwelling, including through computer, mobile phone, or
other device?
1
2
No internet connection
Yes, broadband connection (including ADSL, Cable, Wireless and Satellite connections)
332
3
4
Yes, dial-up connection (including analogue modem and ISDN connections)
(Not Established)
H10 Can you access the Internet in your workplace, including through computer, mobile phone, or other
device?
1
2
3
4
No internet connection
Yes, broadband connection (including ADSL, Cable, Wireless and Satellite connections)
Yes, dial-up connection (including analogue modem and ISDN connections)
(Not Established)
SECTION I: GAMBLING ATTITUDES
I1
As you know, gambling is a popular activity for many people … which of the following statements best
describes your views about the benefit or harm that gambling has for society? (..read out..)
(If necessary: ‘There are no right or wrong answers, all we want is your opinion’)
(rotate scale)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The harm far outweighs the benefits (-2)
The harm somewhat outweighs the benefits (-1)
The benefits are about equal to the harm (0)
The benefits somewhat outweigh the harm (+1)
The benefits far outweigh the harm (+2)
(Don’t know/Can’t say)
Not Established)
SECTION J: CONCLUDING COMMENTS
J1
Thank you very much for your participation in this research.
This research also includes an online survey for gamblers and we would like to send you an email to
notify you of this when it is available, which you can forward to your friends, family and colleagues.
Would you be able to give me your email address for this purpose? This information will be kept
confidential and only used for this purpose.
Record email address, if agreeable ……………………………………………………………………..
J2
We hope to interview participants further for this and other gambling-related research. Would you be
interested in participating in future research, including paid research studies?
1
2
J3
Yes (Skip to J3)
No (Respondent states that they do NOT want us to call back – thank and close suitably)
IF RESPONDENT INTERESTED IN FURTHER RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT
Assure ongoing anonymity and privacy, that their details will not be distributed and take details including
name, address, home and mobile phone and email.
Name:
………………………………………………..
Address (Street & No)
………………………………………………..
Suburb
………………………………………………..
Postcode
………………………………………………..
333
J4
Home Phone (if any)
………………………………………………..
Mobile Phone (if any)
……………………………………………….
e-mail (if not provided)
………………………………………………..
As this is University research it has been approved by the Southern Cross University Human Research
Ethics Committee. Would you like to know more about this project or about counselling services that
help people with the issues we’ve discussed?
_ READ OUT IF WANTED: _ The ethics approval number for this project is 11-053 and the ethics
officer is Sue Kelly. Her phone number is 02 6626 9139. There is a national telephone helpline that
provides free and confidential counselling advice. Their number is 13 11 14. The national gambling
helpline number is 1800 858 858. It is also free and confidential.
_ READ TO ALL: _ As part of quality control procedures, someone from Reark Research may wish to
re-contact you to ask a couple of questions verifying some of the information we just collected. Can I
confirm your phone number,
(Check & record number: ………………………………….
Thanks again for your time, just to remind you, I am from Reark Research. If you have any queries about
the research you can call the project coordinator Nerilee Hing on 02 66203928.
334
APPENDIX B
CALCULATIONS FOR AGE X GENDER WEIGHTING FOR THE
NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY
335
336
APPENDIX C
ORGANISATIONS THAT HOSTED WEBSITE ADVERTISEMENTS
FOR THE NATIONAL ONLINE SURVEY JUNE – DECEMBER 2012
337
SPORTING ASSOCIATIONS
GAMBLING OPERATORS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sportsbet
IASbet
Betfair
Unibet
Sportingbet
ACTTAB
TabCorp
Playkeno
The Star
SkyCity Adelaide
Lotterywest
Racing and Wagering WA
National RSL & Services Clubs
Australian Hotels Association
Queensland Hotels Association
Leagues Clubs Australia
Clubs ACT
Clubs NSW
•
•
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GAMBLING‐RELATED SITES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Council of Major Professional &
Participation Sports
Netball Australia
Cricket Australia
Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing
NSW
Office of Gaming & Racing VIC
Office for Problem Gambling SA
Department of Racing, Gaming and
Liquor WA
Department of Health and Human
Services TAS
Department of Justice NT
Department
of
Broadband,
Communications and the Digital
Economy
GAMBLING HELP SERVICES
Australian Online Poker League
Australian Sports Betting
Ozmium
Australian Poker Weekly
Poker Media
Racehorsetalk forum
Racing Victoria
Australasian Gaming Council
Gambling Research Australia
Gambling Impact Society
McKell Institute
Centre for Gambling Education &
Research
Responsible Gambling Advocacy
Centre
338
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gamblers Help NSW
Gamblers Help VIC
Gambling Help Online
Problem Gambling Support Services
WA
Gambling Help Network QLD
University of Sydney Gambling
Treatment Clinic
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLES OF RECRUITMENT NOTICES FOR THE NATIONAL
ONLINE SURVEY
339
Playkeno.com.au
www.facebook.com.Tabsportsbet
340
www.sportingbet.com.au
www.lotterywest.wa.gov.au
www.clubsaustralia.com.au
341
www.clubsact.com.au
www.gamblingresearch.org.au
http://www.cricket.com.au/about‐us/cricket‐cares
342
https://twitter.com/NetballAust
www.gamblinghelponline.org.au
343
www.gambleaware.vic.gov.au
www.gamblinghelp.nsw.gov.au
344
www.rgl.wa.gov.au
www.dbcde.gov.au
345
www.gambleaware.com.au
www.google.com.au
www.facebook.com
346
APPENDIX E
NATIONAL ONLINE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR INTERACTIVE GAMBLERS
392
INTERACTIVE GAMBLING STUDY
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS
•
Introduction
•
•
•
Hello, my name is _________ and I’m calling to conduct the telephone interview
with you about online gambling. We previously sent you the Participant Information
Sheet and have now received your signed Informed Consent Form – thank you.
(If signed Informed Consent Form has not been received, ask…) Having read the
Informed Consent Form, are you willing to give your verbal informed consent to
participate in this research?
In this interview, we will be talking mostly about online gambling. I’d like to clarify
that online gambling is any gambling using the Internet, which includes computers,
laptops, mobile phone, tablets such as iPads, or through digital TV. This differs from
land‐based gambling, which refers to any gambling done in venues such as casinos,
hotels, clubs, TABs, racetracks, newsagents, etc.
Do you have any questions before we start?
Transition from land-based gambling to interactive gambling
•
Aims:
•
•
•
•
Identify general use of gambling, including land‐based and online forms.
Investigate factors that influenced original take‐up of online gambling – do these
differ between gambling activities?
Investigate extent of online gambling as compared to land‐based and factors that
influence this – do these differ between gambling activities?
Gain an approximate time‐frame for use and uptake of online gambling and
subsequent impact on land‐based play, i.e., does online replace land‐based play, or is
it an additional form of gambling?
Gain an approximate understanding of proportion of total gambling done online and
offline and whether this varies for each gambling activity and the factors that
influence this.
Questions:
Our first few questions are about your history of gambling on both land-based and online
forms. We’re trying to gain a sense of how you started gambling and how it may have changed
over time:
1. Can you tell me about when you first started gambling and why? (prompt if
necessary
for
what
type
of
gambling/what
medium/when/time
spent/frequency/WHY)
393
2. What other gambling activities have you taken part in since? (what type/what
medium/when/time spent/frequency/WHY)
3. Tell me more about the first kind of online gambling you did (so computer, mobile
phone, tablet or digital TV based)? (what type/what medium/when/time
spent/frequency/WHY)
4. And any other kinds of online gambling after that? (what type/what
medium/when/time spent/frequency/WHY)
5. How have your gambling patterns changed since you first started gambling and what
are they now? (prompt for proportion of time spent on online versus land based)
6. What influenced these changes?
Media preference for interactive gambling
•
Aims:
•
•
Online gambling can be accessed using the Internet, mobile phone, tablet or digital
TV. Which of these media are participants most likely to use? Why? Are there factors
other than preference, e.g., convenience, accessibility?
Does this use vary for different types of gambling? Why?
Have media use changed over time? Why or why not?
Questions:
Our next questions are about your media preferences for online gambling, i.e. using a
computer, mobile phone, tablet or digital TV.
7. What things influence you the most in choosing, the device that you use to gamble
online?
8. Does this differ for different types of gambling? (e.g., refer to preferences above)
9. How would you say your preferences/choices have changed over time? WHY?
10. Is your gambling influenced or changed depending on the device you use?
Motivations for interactive gambling
•
Aims:
•
•
What factors encourage ongoing use of online gambling – e.g., advantages compared
to land‐based play
What factors may discourage or are drawbacks of online gambling?
Were these reasons different for different types of gambling?
394
Questions:
We’d now like to ask you what you think about online gambling:
11. What is your opinion on online gambling (good/bad/why)?
12. What is the best thing about online gambling?
13. What is the worst thing about online gambling?
14. What are your opinions and experiences around the promotions used by online
gambling operators?
15. What influences you to gamble online rather than play at land‐based venues? i.e.,
what are the advantages of online gambling?
16. What are the disadvantages of online gambling?
17. Have these changed over time? That is, are the factors that encouraged you to start
gambling online the same as now?
18. How do these factors differ for different gambling activities/games?
Responsible gambling
•
Aims
•
How adequate are responsible gambling measures in the online environment?
What measures have people used and what else would they find useful?
Questions:
Our next questions are about responsible gambling measures:
19. Do you think that online gambling requires more, less or the same amount of
responsible gambling measures as land‐based gambling, i.e. measures to help
players gamble responsibly? Why?
20. Do you think online sites currently do too little, enough or too much to protect
players from harm? What do you like about how they protect players from
harm? What don't you like?
21. What do you think online gambling sites should be required to do to help players
gamble responsibly?
22. What strategies have you used to try and stay within your limits when gambling
online? Have they been useful? How?
23. What other resources or strategies would you use if they were available?
395
Contribution of each interactive medium to gambling problems
•
Aims:
What features of online gambling may contribute to gambling problems
Questions:
We’d now like to ask about features of online gambling that might contribute to gambling
problems:
24. What do you think it is about online gambling that might make someone gamble
more than they meant to?
25. Do you ever feel like your online gambling causes you or your family any problems
or harm?
26. How about for other people who gamble online?
27. Can you explain how having access to gambling online (specifically) contributes to
this (for you or others)?
Help-seeking behaviour
•
Aims:
Are there specific strategies that could be useful for online gamblers with problems
or at‐risk of harm? Including professional, unprofessional and self‐help options
Questions:
Our last few questions are about seeking help for online gambling problems:
28. (Ask only if YES to Qu. 24) Can you tell me about any support or help you’ve asked
for or received to manage any problems you’ve experienced from your gambling?
29. (Ask only if YES to Qu. 24) Can you tell me about any strategies that you’ve tried to
help manage any problems you’ve experienced from your gambling?
30. (Ask only if YES to Qu. 24) Can you think of any types of help that you have used, or
would consider using that would be helpful for Internet gambling specifically?
31. (Ask only if YES to Qu. 24) Can you tell me about any challenges you’ve faced seeking
help for online gambling problems?
32. Can you think of any types of help that would assist people with problems relating to
online gambling specifically?
33. (Ask only if YES to Qu. 24) What do you think the most effective treatment would be
for online gambling problems?
396
That’s the end of my questions, are there any other things you would like to add to tell us about your
experiences with online gambling?
Collect participant name and address so we can send them a $40 Starcash voucher:
Name:
_____________________________________________________________
Postal address:
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Gambling Help Services (if needed)
Gambling Helpline: 1800 858 858
Gambling Help Online: http://www.gamblinghelponline.org.au
Lifeline: 13 11 14 for immediate crisis
397
Related papers
Peranakans in Singapore: Responses to language endangerment and documentation.
Language Documentation & Conservation
Predicting soil Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) from pH, percentage of Clay and Organic Carbon : A Case Study on Selected Burundi Surface Soils
International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre), 2024
Decolonising the mind: the life and work of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o
Culture Matters , 2018
Research Tendency of Tourism Journals: The Case of Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
Current Trends and Practices in Tourism, 2023
Dichlorido-[N,N′-bis(2,6-dimethylphenyl)pentane-2,4-diiminato](indenyl)zirconium(IV) toluene hemisolvate
Acta Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online, 2007
For Other Logistical Worlds: Accretion and Infrastructure in the Making of Anaklia Port
Connections, 2023
Double substrate limitation model for the bio-based production of succinic acid from glycerol
Biochemical Engineering Journal, 2020
A Frequency-Weighted Energy Operator and complementary ensemble empirical mode decomposition for bearing fault detection
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2017
Components of the Rb pathway are critical targets of UV mutagenesis in a murine melanoma model
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2003
The Development of Social Norms: Another Round Beyond the Agency-Structure Divide
– Piccolo Koskimies, E. (2018, April 4-7). The Development of Social Norms: Another Round Beyond the Agency-Structure Divide. The Case of the International Criminal Court [Paper Presentation]. ISA Annual Convention 2018, San Francisco, US., 2018
- Find new research papers in:
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Biology
- Health Sciences
- Ecology
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science