Self-Exclusion among Online Poker Gamblers: Effects on Expenditure in Time and Money as Compared to Matched Controls - PubMed (original) (raw)
Comparative Study
Self-Exclusion among Online Poker Gamblers: Effects on Expenditure in Time and Money as Compared to Matched Controls
Amandine Luquiens et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019.
Abstract
Background: No comparative data is available to report on the effect of online self-exclusion. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of self-exclusion in online poker gambling as compared to matched controls, after the end of the self-exclusion period. Methods: We included all gamblers who were first-time self-excluders over a 7-year period (n = 4887) on a poker website, and gamblers matched for gender, age and account duration (n = 4451). We report the effects over time of self-exclusion after it ended, on money (net losses) and time spent (session duration) using an analysis of variance procedure between mixed models with and without the interaction of time and self-exclusion. Analyzes were performed on the whole sample, on the sub-groups that were the most heavily involved in terms of time or money (higher quartiles) and among short-duration self-excluders (<3 months). Results: Significant effects of self-exclusion and short-duration self-exclusion were found for money and time spent over 12 months. Among the gamblers that were the most heavily involved financially, no significant effect on the amount spent was found. Among the gamblers who were the most heavily involved in terms of time, a significant effect was found on time spent. Short-duration self-exclusions showed no significant effect on the most heavily involved gamblers. Conclusions: Self-exclusion seems efficient in the long term. However, the effect on money spent of self-exclusions and of short-duration self-exclusions should be further explored among the most heavily involved gamblers.
Keywords: comparative study; online gambling; poker; responsible gambling; self-exclusion.
Conflict of interest statement
A.L. has received sponsorship to attend scientific meetings, speaker honoraria and consultancy fees from Lundbeck, Indivior, and ARJEL. A.B. has received sponsorship to attend scientific meetings, speaker honoraria and consultancy fees from Lundbeck, Mylan, Gilead, Jansenn Cilag and Indivior. A.D., H.P., S.G. and E.B. have no conflict of interest to report.
Figures
Figure 1
Evolution of money/time spent in the last 4 weeks (€/hours) at baseline and after the end of self-exclusion period (n = 4887 and n = 4451). (* = _p_-value < 0.05—ANOVA between the mixed model with and the null model without the interaction of self-exclusion X time).
Figure 2
Evolution of money spent (net loss) in the last 4 weeks before and after the self-exclusion period among the gamblers who were the most heavily involved in terms of money (n = 2255 and 79 respectively for the self-excluders and the control group of matched gamblers) and time (n = 2150 and 185 respectively for the self-excluders and the control group of matched gamblers) (* = _p-_value < 0.05 —ANOVA between the mixed model with and the null model without the interaction of self-exclusion X time). (* = p-value < 0.05 - ANOVA between the mixed model with and the null model without the interaction of self-exclusion X time).
Figure 3
Evolution of money / time spent in the last 4 weeks (€/hours) before and after a short self-exclusion (n = 1460 and 1333). (* = _p_-value < 0.05—ANOVA between the mixed model with and the null model without the interaction of self-exclusion X time).
Figure 4
Evolution of money spent (net loss) in the last 4 weeks before and after a short self-exclusion among the gamblers who were the most heavily involved in terms of money (n = 683 and 18 respectively for the self-excluders and the control group of matched gamblers) and in terms of time (n = 665 and 35 respectively for the self-excluders and the control group of matched gamblers). (* = _p_-value < 0.05—ANOVA between the mixed model with and the null model without the interaction of self-exclusion X time).
Similar articles
- Description and assessment of trustability of motives for self-exclusion reported by online poker gamblers in a cohort using account-based gambling data.
Luquiens A, Vendryes D, Aubin HJ, Benyamina A, Gaiffas S, Bacry E. Luquiens A, et al. BMJ Open. 2018 Dec 22;8(12):e022541. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022541. BMJ Open. 2018. PMID: 30580263 Free PMC article. - Effectiveness of At-Risk Gamblers' Temporary Self-Exclusion from Internet Gambling Sites.
Caillon J, Grall-Bronnec M, Perrot B, Leboucher J, Donnio Y, Romo L, Challet-Bouju G. Caillon J, et al. J Gambl Stud. 2019 Jun;35(2):601-615. doi: 10.1007/s10899-018-9782-y. J Gambl Stud. 2019. PMID: 29974308 Clinical Trial. - Are online poker problem gamblers sensation seekers?
Bonnaire C, Barrault S. Bonnaire C, et al. Psychiatry Res. 2018 Jun;264:310-315. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.024. Epub 2018 Mar 31. Psychiatry Res. 2018. PMID: 29665560 - [Internet gambling: what are the risks?].
Bonnaire C. Bonnaire C. Encephale. 2012 Feb;38(1):42-9. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2011.01.014. Epub 2011 Apr 8. Encephale. 2012. PMID: 22381723 Review. French. - Psychopathology of Online Poker Players: Review of Literature.
Moreau A, Chabrol H, Chauchard E. Moreau A, et al. J Behav Addict. 2016 Jun;5(2):155-68. doi: 10.1556/2006.5.2016.035. Epub 2016 Jun 27. J Behav Addict. 2016. PMID: 27348559 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Gambling Harm-Minimisation Tools and Their Impact on Gambling Behaviour: A Review of the Empirical Evidence.
Riley BJ, Oakes J, Lawn S. Riley BJ, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Jul 30;21(8):998. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21080998. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39200609 Free PMC article. Review. - Behavioural Tracking and Profiling Studies Involving Objective Data Derived from Online Operators: A Review of the Evidence.
Delfabbro P, Parke J, Catania M. Delfabbro P, et al. J Gambl Stud. 2024 Jun;40(2):639-671. doi: 10.1007/s10899-023-10247-6. Epub 2023 Aug 27. J Gambl Stud. 2024. PMID: 37634166 Free PMC article. Review. - The Efficacy of Voluntary Self-Exclusions in Reducing Gambling Among a Real-World Sample of British Online Casino Players.
Hopfgartner N, Auer M, Helic D, Griffiths MD. Hopfgartner N, et al. J Gambl Stud. 2023 Dec;39(4):1833-1848. doi: 10.1007/s10899-023-10198-y. Epub 2023 Mar 25. J Gambl Stud. 2023. PMID: 36964832 Free PMC article. - Predicting self-exclusion among online gamblers: An empirical real-world study.
Hopfgartner N, Auer M, Griffiths MD, Helic D. Hopfgartner N, et al. J Gambl Stud. 2023 Mar;39(1):447-465. doi: 10.1007/s10899-022-10149-z. Epub 2022 Aug 10. J Gambl Stud. 2023. PMID: 35947331 Free PMC article. - Responsible product design to mitigate excessive gambling: A scoping review and z-curve analysis of replicability.
McAuliffe WHB, Edson TC, Louderback ER, LaRaja A, LaPlante DA. McAuliffe WHB, et al. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 20;16(4):e0249926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249926. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 33878126 Free PMC article. Review.
References
- Luquiens A., Vendryes D., Aubin H.J., Benyamina A., Gaiffas S., Bacry E. Description and assessment of trustability of motives for self-exclusion reported by online poker gamblers in a cohort using account-based gambling data. BMJ Open. 2018;8:022541. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022541. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
- Shaffer P., Blaszczynski A., Shaffer H.J. Responsible gambling: A synthesis of the empirical evidence AU-Ladouceur, Robert. Addict. Res. Theory. 2017;25:225–235. doi: 10.1080/16066359.2016.1245294. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical