Safer Gambling Tools - Do You Actually Use Them or Are They Just There?

[TaffyTipster]

Honest inventory.

I have deposit limits set on two of my accounts.

Set them three years ago after a bad Six Nations period. Bronwyn had said something. I went on the apps that evening and set limits that felt responsible.

The limits are still there.

They've never been triggered.

Because I set them at amounts that felt like genuine restrictions at the time but that I never actually reach in a normal month anyway.

So technically: I use deposit limits. Practically: I have deposit limits that have never done anything.

I think I set them to feel like I was doing something rather than to actually restrict anything.

Anyone else have safer gambling tools that are essentially decorative.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Set a session time limit on one account in 2019.

Thirty minute reminder. After thirty minutes a pop-up asks if I want to continue.

I click continue every single time.

The reminder has never once resulted in me stopping.

What it has resulted in is a mild irritation every thirty minutes.

The pop-up is designed to create a moment of reflection. What it actually creates is a brief interruption before I click continue and return to exactly what I was doing.

Friction that doesn't create enough resistance to change the behavior. Just enough to be annoying.

 

[FadeThePublic]

The tools are built to satisfy regulators not to work.

That sounds cynical. It's the accurate description of how they've been designed and implemented.

A deposit limit that the user sets themselves and can change with a 24 hour cooling period after completing a quiz is not a meaningful deposit limit.

A session reminder that requires one click to dismiss is not a meaningful session reminder.

The tools exist to demonstrate compliance with responsible gambling requirements. They're not engineered to actually reduce harm in people who have developed problematic patterns.

The people who need them least will set them and feel responsible. The people who need them most will work around them.

That's not accidental product design failure. That's intentional product design success from the operator's perspective.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

I genuinely did not know most of these tools existed until right now.

I've just looked at my FanDuel account.

Deposit limits. Wagering limits. Session time limits. Self-exclusion options.

All there. Never seen them before today.

I don't know whether that's because they're hidden or because I never looked.

Looked now: they're not hidden exactly. Just not in the obvious place.

Three clicks from the home screen.

The SGP builder is the first thing you see when you open the app.

The responsible gambling tools are three clicks in.

That prioritization is a design choice.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

The three clicks vs. front page framing says everything.

The product that generates revenue: immediate. Full screen. Constantly promoted.

The product that reduces revenue: findable if you specifically look.

I've used spend trackers on two accounts. Went in after a particularly bad stretch and turned them on.

Watched the numbers for two weeks. Then stopped checking.

The tracker still runs. I stopped looking at it because looking at it required confronting numbers I didn't want to see.

The tool worked. I stopped using the tool.

That distinction matters. The problem wasn't access to the tool.

 

[DublinDegen]

self-excluded from every licensed UK operator in 2021...

gamstop... the national scheme... registered and excluded myself for five years...

it worked for about three weeks...

then found offshore sites that don't operate under UK license...

not hard to find... fifteen minutes of googling...

deposited there instead...

the self-exclusion didn't stop the betting... it just redirected it from regulated operators with some protections to unregulated operators with none...

ended up in a worse situation than before the exclusion...

not saying self-exclusion is useless... for some people it works...

but for me at my worst the exclusion was an obstacle i navigated rather than a stop...

because the thing driving the betting doesn't care about your gamstop registration...

 

[oli_sussex]

Conor's experience is the documented failure mode that the industry uses to argue that tools don't work and the harm reduction community uses to argue that tools need to be better.

Both sides use the same evidence differently.

At the exchange I watched accounts that had self-excluded return through linked accounts, family members' accounts, VPN-accessed offshore operators.

The self-exclusion was effective for low-motivation users. Ineffective for high-motivation users.

The people most harmed by gambling are also the most motivated to circumvent protections.

That's not a design flaw. It's a fundamental limit of any voluntary or operator-side tool.

The only self-exclusion that's harder to circumvent is financial. Blocking gambling transactions at the bank level.

Some UK banks now offer this. It's more effective because the friction is at a different point in the chain.

 

[TaffyTipster]

Barclays and a few others have gambling blocks now.

You turn it on and card transactions to betting operators get declined.

That one actually interests me as a genuine tool rather than a decorative one.

Because you can set it in a moment of clear thinking and it operates even when you're not thinking clearly.

The deposit limit I set requires me to have not hit the limit when I want to bet.

The bank block operates regardless of my state when I try to bet.

Different mechanism entirely.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Taffy identifying the correct framework for evaluating these tools.

The relevant question isn't whether the tool exists.

It's whether the tool operates during states of clear thinking only or also during states of impaired judgment.

Tools that only work when you're thinking clearly are not useful for people who bet when they're not thinking clearly.

The bank block works during impaired states because the friction is external and pre-committed.

The session reminder doesn't because it requires a clear-thinking decision to respect it in the moment.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

I just turned on the gambling block on my bank account.

Not because I think I have a serious problem.

Because reading this thread I realized all my responsible gambling tools were ones I'd set and never notice.

The bank block is one where if I try to get around it I'll notice.

It can be turned off. I know that. But turning it off is a different act than clicking continue on a pop-up.

It takes longer. It requires a clearer decision.

Maybe that's enough.

 

[FadeThePublic]

Princess actually doing something in real time again.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

The bank block turning off is still too easy at most banks.

Toggle. Thirty second delay. Done.

The ones that work better have a 48 or 72 hour cooling period before the block can be removed.

Same principle as the cooling period on deposit limit changes.

The gap between deciding to remove the restriction and being able to remove it is where the tool does its work.

If the gap is thirty seconds it's not a real gap.

 

[Klaus]

I have no safer gambling tools active on any account.

My methodology functions as its own restriction. If the criteria aren't met there is no bet. This operates regardless of emotional state because the criteria are external to the emotional state.

But I've been honest in previous threads that the methodology's discipline may depend partly on circumstances.

The question of whether I would need external tools if the circumstances changed is one I haven't answered.

I keep not answering it because answering it requires admitting the methodology might not be sufficient on its own.

 

[DublinDegen]

one thing that actually helped more than any formal tool...

telling someone...

not a gamstop registration... not a deposit limit...

just telling one person who wasn't a bettor the actual number...

the actual amount... the actual frequency...

the accountability was external and personal not external and institutional...

institutional external accountability i could navigate around...

personal external accountability to someone who knew and would ask...

harder to navigate around...

not impossible... but harder...

 

[ThePuntingProf]

The personal accountability point Conor makes is the one I find most compelling and most unavailable to me personally.

Margaret functioned as this without either of us naming it. She knew my patterns well enough that significant deviations would have been visible to her.

I have no equivalent now.

I have set deposit limits on my accounts. They're set at levels that don't constrain my actual betting. They're there for the same reason Taffy described. They make me feel like I'm doing something.

What I actually need is someone who knows enough to notice. Not a tool. A person.

I don't know how to acquire that at fifty-eight with a specific kind of loss behind me.

The tools are a substitute for the thing I actually need.

An inadequate substitute.

 

[TaffyTipster]

Bronwyn knowing is my version of what Prof is describing.

She doesn't know the exact numbers. But she knows the shape of it.

When things are bad she notices before I say anything.

That's better than any deposit limit I've set.

Not better than it should be. Because she's doing work she didn't sign up for.

But better than the decorative limit set in a responsible moment that I never reach.

 

[SharpEddie47]

The honest inventory from this thread:

Session reminders: decorative. One click to dismiss.

Deposit limits set by users: mostly decorative. Set at non-binding levels.

Formal self-exclusion: effective for low-motivation cases. Navigable for high-motivation cases.

Bank-level gambling blocks with cooling periods: most effective currently available.

Personal accountability to a specific person who knows the real numbers: more effective than any tool. Less available than any tool.

Methodology as self-imposed structure: effective in stable circumstances. Unknown in unstable ones.

The tools we're given are mostly worse than the tools we don't have.

 

[oli_sussex]

The bank block with cooling period is the current best available option for people who want genuine friction.

Not because it's good. Because everything else is worse.

The gap between what's available and what would actually work is significant.

That gap is not accidental.

 

[DublinDegen]

the gamstop exclusion that redirected me offshore...

ended up somewhere with nothing...

the offshore site had no tools at all... no limits... no reminders... no exclusion option...

and no one to notice...

spent six months there before things got bad enough that i had to stop for different reasons...

the tool failure created conditions that made the eventual stopping harder and the harm larger...

which is the version of the tool failure that never makes it into the operator's responsible gambling annual report...

 

[FadeThePublic]

Conor's version is the one the responsible gambling industry needs to reckon with more honestly.

The tool failure doesn't just fail to help. It can actively worsen outcomes by redirecting to less regulated environments.

A tool with a documented failure mode that worsens harm is not a responsible gambling tool.

It's a liability management tool.

Those are different things with the same name.