In an interview with IGB, Ozrik Vondervelden, co-founder of Greco, discusses the delicate balance that the gambling industry must strike in protecting players while managing operator risks within the bonus system.
Welcome bonuses are a key strategy for attracting customers in the gambling industry, offering marketing leverage and partnership opportunities, but also posing financial risks for operators. Managing these risks is challenging, especially in securing maximum rates, with potential solutions including restricting maximum bet sizes during bonus games.
However, retroactively applying these restrictions can lead to player funds being confiscated, as pointed out by Duncan Garvey of thePOGG. While restrictions are necessary to meet consumer demand for bonuses and reduce risk, the industry's approach can disadvantage players who may not fully understand or adhere to the terms and conditions.
Ultimately, the industry's self-serving approach to mitigating risk through bonus restrictions can lead to unfair outcomes for players, with operators benefiting from players inadvertently violating the terms of the bonuses.
Hidden, complex and unclear terms
Joachim Timmermans, co-founder of Quickspin and director of Print Studios, reveals a personal anecdote that sheds light on the impact of the bonus system on gamers and their behaviours.
He emphasises the discrepancy between industry insiders and typical players, describing his own challenges when trying to withdraw winnings due to a casino accusation of violating bet limits.
Timmermans criticises the industry practice of using complex terms to confiscate winnings from unsuspecting players, noting a lack of transparency and accountability from operators when confronted. He highlights community forums where similar issues are discussed, with a tendency to blame the player rather than address underlying issues. While Timmermans was able to resolve his situation with industry connections, he acknowledges that the average player lacks such resources for recourse.
Genuine players suffer while scammers reap the rewards of exploiting bonuses.
Scammers, unlike regular players, meticulously analyse the rules and terms of online casinos to their advantage. One common tactic of bonus abuse is multi-accounting, where individuals use multiple identities to maximise their bonus benefits. These abusers often operate within extensive networks, swiftly sharing information within the counter-industry. To avoid detection, attackers only breach maximum bet limits when confident they can escape scrutiny. Operators must weigh the decision to penalise legitimate players or tolerate widespread bonus abuse.
The severe repercussions of penalising legitimate players are substantial, as shown by the large volume of negative feedback on platforms like TrustPilot. Furthermore, operators face significant resource expenses when manually detecting violations and resolving ADR disputes. Several UK operators have found success by implementing a maximum bet limit during gameplay to prevent the need for drastic penalties like confiscation.
“Over the last few years that I have been involved in player complaints, we have seen a noticeable decrease in the number of complaints related to the maximum bet conditions,” adds Garvey. “This is because our user base has historically focused on UK players, and in the UK market the industry has been strongly encouraged by regulators to enforce special conditions at the point of play to ensure that issues are mitigated as much as possible.”
Can collaboration disrupt the harmful cycle of players, bonuses, and cheaters?
The issue with bonus systems extends beyond the UK market, involving similar operators. While restrictions are implemented automatically in the UK, they have been abandoned for players in other countries.
Implementing a maximum bet during gameplay would benefit genuine players. However, operators may not solely resist this approach due to selfish motives.
The implementation of this solution is accompanied by several significant challenges. Not all game aggregators and bookmakers support the necessary in-game features for blocking bets and alerting players when they exceed the maximum bet size. As a result, operators have resorted to a workaround where they manipulate the player's wallet balance if they exceed the maximum bet, triggering a non-game popup that must be dismissed before the player can continue. This workaround negatively impacts the user experience, especially on mobile applications and browsers.
To address this issue, it is essential for studios and aggregators to agree on a standard callback to handle high bets and bonuses. Without this cooperation, operators will continue to rely on this inefficient workaround or reactive measures.
Deterrence theory
For example, at Greco, we have implemented a simple solution to prevent betting violations. We use automatic pop-ups to alert players when they exceed their maximum bets in real-time. This allows players to adjust their behaviour and is based on the "Theory of Deterrence". By notifying players immediately, we implicitly communicate that evidence is being collected for potential punishment if the behaviour continues. This approach has proven to significantly reduce violations, leading to fewer disputes and quicker resolutions.
Additionally, it has helped improve our brand reputation, increase profits, all without impacting the user experience.
Our findings indicate that timely communication with players at the first hint of risk is a highly effective deterrent, distinguishing genuine players from bonus scammers. This strategy is endorsed by the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS).
Richard Hayler, the managing director of the organisation, suggests that utilising real-time pop-up notifications can serve as a valuable tool in resolving disputes with IBAS. To enhance this strategy, it is advisable to mandate player acknowledgment of these notifications through interactive clicks.
Furthermore, these pop-ups should be clearly labelled and accompanied by supporting evidence to eliminate any confusion about their purpose. This systematic approach will maintain consistency and prevent any misunderstandings about the source of the notifications or the validity of actions taken.
