An Exploratory Investigation into the Attitudes and
Behaviours of Online Casino and Poker Players
Dr. Jonathan Parke
Centre for the Study of
Gambling
j.parke@salford.ac.uk
Co-researchers:
Dr. Adrian Parke (University of Lincoln)
Dr. Richard Wood (Gamres Ltd)
Jane Rigbye (IGRU, Nottingham Trent University)
Background
• The aims include exploring the following:
– Basic dynamics of Internet poker and casino behaviour
– Player protection and corporate social responsibility in gambling
• We did not consider:
– Offline gambling
– Sports betting, betting exchanges, lottery or spread betting
– Problem Gambling
• There is more external pressure than ever for
this information (responsible gambling in
particular)
– IRGCP and Gambling Act 2005
– Saturation and intense competition
– Scrutiny: media, customers and even themselves
Survey: Method
• Used Internet Mediated Research (IMR) – 225 items
• Various sources (e-mails; portals; media and eCOGRA)
Representation
Total Respondents
Number
10865
Males
6246
Females
4517
Countries
96
Employment Sectors
37
• Internet casino and poker players (“active players”)
• Ethical clearance
Focus Groups: Method
• Details of participants include:
Breakdown of Participant Details and Locations of Focus Groups
Country
Participants
Gender
Mean
Age
Age Range
USA
11
All male
31
19 - 56
UK
23
All male
27
18 - 43
Canada
18
1 female, 17 male
37
21 - 60
Germany
17
7 female, 10 male
28
20 - 45
Sweden
25
4 female, 21 male
32
17 - 60
• Advertisements were placed in a variety of sources
• Sessions usually lasted 90-120 minutes
Results - Internet Casino
Modal Categories
Modal categories for various demographic and
behavioural variables among internet casino players:
• female (54.8%)
• aged 46-55 (29.5%)
• play 2-3 times per week (37%)
• visited > 6 online casinos in the preceding three
months (25%)
• played for 2-3 years (22.4%)
• play for between 1-2 hours per session (26.5%)
• Wager $30-$60 per session (18.1%)
Results - Internet Casino
Motivation
• Winning money is considered to be most important
factor in making Internet casino play enjoyable:
– It was often considered as a secondary intrinsic motivation
– The least common motivation for gambling was to socialise
– Some support for traditional gender differences in motivation
• Important factors in determining the where players
choose to play:
–
–
–
–
Bonuses (76.6%)
Game Variety (62.1%)
Deposit Method (56.8%)
Trust (Focus Groups)
Results - Internet Poker
Modal Categories
Modal categories for various demographic and behavioural
variables among internet poker players:
• Be male (73.8%)
• Be aged 26-35 (26.9%)
• Play 2-3 times per week (26.8%)
• Have visited > 6 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%)
• Play one (24.1%) or two (24%) poker tables at a time
• Play both cash games and tournaments (34%)
• Play at big-blind (minimum stake) levels of $0.50 to $2.00 (61.2%)
• Play with 6-10% of their bankroll
at a table at anyone time (23%)
Results - Internet Poker
Other Findings
• Around 12% of Internet poker players gender swap
– Those who do - significantly poorer financial performance
“I am male, and other players perceive females as weaker/not as good
as men. Also when a woman player makes a big bet, a male player is
more likely to perceive that she is bluffing, and he will call, and so
when playing as a woman, I make big bets when I have it, hoping the
male player will think I'm bluffing.”
(Male, United States)
“…to avoid players that feel they can intimidate me with large raises
because I'm female, and to avoid sexual harassment.”
(Female, Canada)
“Women aren't usually respected at a table full of men. So I just want
to avoid "sweetheart" and "darlin" and if I win a hand I want to avoid
seeing (to the other guy) "you let a girl beat you.”
(Female, United States)
Value Placed on Responsible Gambling
Features by Players (N=8584)
Spending
Limits
3500
3000
Time
Limits
3000
2500
N=8584
2500
N=8461
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
No
ta
ta
No
tv
ll
Us
e
er
y
Qu
i
us
fu
l
te
Ve
Us
ef
ul
ry
ef
ul
Ex
Us
ef
u
l
tre
m
el
No
ta
y
Us
e
fu
l
SelfExclusion
3000
2500
N=8198
2000
ta
No
tv
ll
Us
e
er
y
Qu
i
us
fu
l
te
Ve
Us
ef
ul
ry
ef
ul
Ex
Us
ef
u
l
tre
m
el
y
Us
e
fu
l
Financial
Statements
4000
3500
3000
N=8391
2500
1500
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
No
ta
ta
No
tv
ll
Us
e
fu
l
er
y
Qu
i
us
ef
ul
te
Ve
Us
ef
ul
ry
Ex
Us
ef
u
l
tre
m
el
No
ta
y
Us
e
fu
l
ta
No
tv
ll
Us
e
fu
l
er
y
Qu
i
us
ef
ul
te
Ve
Us
ef
ul
ry
Ex
Us
ef
u
l
tre
m
el
y
Us
e
fu
l
Value Placed on Spending Limits
According to Country (N=8584)
45
40
Quite
Useful
35
Spending limits useful or not?
Yes
No
Australia
65%
35%
Canada
62.7%
37.3%
20
Netherlands
59.1%
40.9%
15
Sweden
70%
30%
10
UK
65.4%
34.6%
USA
54.4%
45.6%
Very
Useful
30
Extremely
Useful
25
%
5
0
Country
U
K
SA
U
h
et
en
la
er
da
s
nd
lia
ra
a
an
t
us
ed
Sw
N
C
A
Focus 1 - Education and Transparency:
Understanding Payout Percentages
I would really like to have more wins compared to the amount of
money I spend. For instance, the first year I started online
gambling, I spent about $46,000 of which I only won about $22,000,
and it has only gotten worse since then. I rarely win, winning
meaning if I bet anywhere from $50 to $100, I consider it a win of
$1500 to $2500. I would really like to win more. Last 2 years I think I
only won 1-2 times where I cashed out and had my winnings sent to
me. Also, I would really like to have more clarification on when you
say "Payout Percentages". What does the casino and the powers
that be consider as “payouts”. How do you figure it and what do
you base your information on? Does payout percentages mean
actual money that people cashed out with from what they spent or
what the casino paid out over and above what was spent at the
casinos? That is not clear and therefore "payout percentages" has
no meaning for me because that could mean anything.
Female, aged 46-55, USA, Retired
Focus 2 - Case against CSR:
Responsibility Rests with Players
If you can't control yourself, you deserve to be broke. We've
sold ourselves as a society on the idea that individuals
aren't responsible for anything that happens to them. If
they're alcoholic, it's because they were abused, or their
genes dispose them to it. If they're fat, it's not the gallon of
ice cream they're eating, it's because Kraft forced them to
get fat. If they slip and fall in a restaurant, it's not because
they were walking around blabbing on a cell phone without
any clue what's going on, it's because there was a tiny wet
patch on the floor that the owner negligently failed to clean
up. Ridiculous. Will power is dead. I'm sure these controls
are useful for people that can't help themselves, though. I
just don't feel any pity for those who need it.
Male, aged 18-25, USA, Legal profession
Luck in Online Gambling
Perceptions of Luck
Luck in Online Gambling
Perceptions of Luck
Luck in Online Gambling
Lucky Charms (N = 617)
Other lucky charms reported included:
Statue of Jesus; A cross; Dice; Stuffed animals (usually dogs);
Lots of plastic frogs; Some had lucky music; Jewellery (mostly
rings); A piece of a tree that was struck by lightning; Singing
figurines; Underwear; or elephants; getting one’s partner to rub
their head for luck.
Results - Luck in Online Gambling
Perceptions of Luck and Control
Measure of Monthly Financial Success
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
Casino
Poker
Lucky
Streaks
Gambler's
Fallacy
Unbiased
Top Ten Best Things About
Online Gambling
Based on answers from the open-ended question “what
is the best thing about gambling online” N = 6654
1 Convenience and Accessibility (N = 3925)
2 Fun and Excitement (N = 1075)
3 Winning and Financial Reward (N = 893)
4 Anonymity and Privacy (N = 427)
5 Relaxation (N = 329)
6 Better Value and Lower Stakes (N = 186)
7 Relieves Boredom (N = 157)
8 Speed (N = 153)
9 No Need for Staff (N = 148)
10 Variety - games; blinds; players (N = 144)
Top Ten Worst Things About
Online Gambling
Based on answers from the open-ended question “what
is the worst thing about gambling online” N = 6346
1 Losing and Financial Implications (N = 1668)
2 Payment Issues (N = 1075)
3 Addiction and Vulnerable Populations (N = 781)
4 Cheating and Low Level of Trust (N = 646)
5 Convenience and Accessibility (N = 530)
6 Barriers to Playing (N = 350)
7 Technological Problems (N = 345)
8 Nothing [Love it] (N = 295)
9 Other Irritating People (N =159)
10 Poor Customer Service (N = 132)
Conclusions
• Methodological Limitations
– Self-report
– Self-selected
– Predominance of US respondents
• Responsible gambling features: support not widespread
– More support for “enabling” gamblers rather than “restricting gambling”
• At a minimum there is a need for basic provision that
will not impinge on other gamblers’ rights
– E.g. Education (explaining payout ratio)
– E.g. Honest Advertising (such as bonuses)
Conclusions
• At a minimum there is a need for basic provision
that will not impinge on other gamblers’ rights
– IRGCP progress encouraging but still long way to go
• Orientation to responsible gambling policy
depends on players background
– More obvious
– Less obvious
• Are some Internet responsible gambling features
unfair and unrealistic?
– Evidence on the impact of interruptions?
– 70% of Internet Casino players have 3 or more sites
– 50% of Internet Poker players play on 3 or more sites
Conclusions and Future Directions
• Traditional Gender Stereotypes are Changing
• Poker Popularity Among Younger Players – Age or
Cohort Effect?
• Internet Gamblers – Complex and Demanding Bunch
• New information regarding one of the most important
stakeholders in responsible gambling
• The Evolution of Online Gambling Research
– Limitations of the Research
– Behavioural Data
– Expect Exponential Developments in Internet
Gambling Research
End
Account Summary – Example 1
Account Summary – Example 2
Account Summary – Example 3
Account Summary – Example 4
Results - Internet Poker (N = 5012)
Bankroll Management and Financial Performance
Mean Monthly Financial Outcome for Internet
Poker Players (scores based on category
membership and player's own estimates)
Complex Relationship Between Percentage of Bankroll Played at Any One
Table and the Estimated Monthly Financial Outcome
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
less than
2%
2-5%
6-10%
11-20%
21-40%
41-75%
more than
75%
Percentage of Bankroll Played Used at a Table at Any One Time
Results - Internet Poker (N = 4980)
Multi-tabling and Financial Performance
Mean Monthly Financial Outcome for Internet
Poker Players (scores based on category
membership and player's own estimates)
Complex Relationship Between Number of Tables Played at a Time and the
Estimated Monthly Financial Outcome
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of Tables Played at Any One Time
more than 6
An Exploratory Investigation into the Attitudes and
Behaviours of Online Casino and Poker Players
Dr. Jonathan Parke
Centre for the Study of
Gambling
j.parke@salford.ac.uk
Co-researchers:
Dr. Adrian Parke (University of Lincoln)
Dr. Richard Wood (Gamres Ltd)
Jane Rigbye (IGRU, Nottingham Trent University)