Gambling - FOBTs - Government Evaluation Published

On 6 April 2015 the Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 were implemented.

The aim of those Regulations was said to be to assist those who use sub-category B2 gaming machines (FOBTs) to control their gambling behaviour by requiring persons accessing higher stakes (over £50) to load cash via staff interaction or use account based play.

The DCMS has today published an evaluation document in relation to those Regulations.

The full report can be accessed here: 'Evaluation of Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use)(Amendment) Regulations 2015'. The conclusion, amongst other matters states as follows:

“There has been a fall in the two quarters since the regulation was implemented of about £6.2bn in the amount bet in stakes over £50 from 2014 to 2015 for Q2 and Q3. There has also been a £5.1bn increase in the total amount staked at the £40-£50 range for the two quarters since the regulation was implemented. This is an overall decrease of approximately 10.1% in the amount staked over £40 in 2015 Q2 and Q3 compared to 2014 in nominal terms. This may be a result of more conscious decision making or it could be because players wish to maintain their anonymity. This could be interpreted as either:

• Players circumventing authorisation of higher stakes to maintain their anonymity with no associated increase in control of their play or;

• It is possible that those who are no longer staking over £50 are doing so because the authorisation mechanisms have given them greater control over their staking behaviour.

In this respect it could be said to have increased player control in line with the policy’s objective. The increase in duration could also reflect players taking more considered action.”

The conclusion then goes on to say  that “there is not conclusive evidence this is the case though. An increase in duration of play for those staking exclusively under £50 could also reflect taking more time to think through actions. Again, there is not conclusive evidence this is the case.”