Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2026/march/bombarding-gamblers-with-offers-greatly-increases-betting-and-gambling-harm.html

by hhs • 4 months ago

181 138 4 months ago

bristol.ac.uk

xenadu02• 4 months ago

Super shocking (sarcasm).

Gamblers are the whales of that industry. The industry is well aware of that and well aware of how much harm they can cause. But their paychecks depend on not knowing so they choose not to.

Same as pay-to-win freemium games. Find the whales and milk them for all you can. For every high-spender who can afford it they know full well the other 99 cannot. They know they are ruining some people's lives. They know they use dirty psychological manipulation tactics. Their paychecks depend on not knowing so they choose not to.

mc32• 4 months ago

Also there’s a bit of a tragedy of the commons. If one entity is scrupulous that doesn’t mean another will. Obviously if they had any morals they’d see the bright line.

eucyclos2• 4 months ago

I wonder how incentives could be better aligned.

Had an interesting case study where a coworker liked to gamble - he was fairly responsible, kept to his budget and treated it like an expensive hobby he enjoyed- but at the same time, he had someone else handle his retirement investments, which is an unpredictable payoff market where you come out ahead on average. I asked a couple times why he didn't replace gambling with investing and never got a good answer. He was certainly smart enough that he could have had fun with the research and chance.

Then there was a market downturn and his investment advisor had to talk him down from selling in a panic, and I was like "oh... It's not an information problem at all. It's entirely an emotional regulation problem"

I should sell a "meditation for investors" course

Jerrrrrrrry• 4 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem

epolanski4• 4 months ago

The worst thing is that gambling companies are free to ban you if you win too much.

So if you're still there it's just because you're being milked.

There's a a giant market for second hand accounts on betting websites for this very reason.

dozerly• 4 months ago

This is my favorite line to bring up amongst my gambling addicted friends :)

They are not big fans

nickff• 4 months ago

There are many jurisdictions where the companies are not allowed to ban 'winners', but the companies often respond by lowering those users' bet size limits.

vasvir• 4 months ago

Not only winners but anyone that looks like to know what is doing.

By that I mean that they try to detect and ban any pattern that may be math / ML derived or arbitrage seeking.

I have been banned on an account that was loosing money (around -15eur) and the bet was 2.96eur - yep fractional bets is a big no - no.

So while it is possible to find better odds and win in the long run based on stats and ML with a 3% - 5% profit they will ban you before you do.

Forgeties794• 4 months ago

No different than Big Tobacco right? They loved researching all the things that weren’t linked to smoking.

schubidubiduba• 4 months ago

No different than big tech and their divisive algorithms. Or big pharma and side effects. Or big manufacturing and environmental harm (including harm to the people living around manufacturing companies).

It is an inherent property of unchecked capitalism to externalise and ignore any unwanted costs. Or on the flip side of that coin, profit from causing damage to others, where possible.

nntwozz• 4 months ago

Same as pay-to-win freemium games. Find the whales and milk them for all you can.

This is what happened to EVE Online and many other MMORPGs.

rimbo789• 4 months ago

The legalization and expansion of gambling was a massive mistake and should be undone as soon as possible.

FabHK• 4 months ago

Indeed. I seem to recall reading that among all addictions, gambling addiction had the highest suicide rate. I haven't been able to find a good source on that lamentably, but it seems plausible to me in the sense that many other addictions (alcohol, sex, heroin, etc.) have some sort of end-point built in at which you stop, and typically have only harmed yourself.

With gambling you can gamble away your kid's college savings, or the retirement savings for you and your spouse. Seems that you can wreak havoc beyond yourself even more so than with other types of addiction.

thn-gap• 4 months ago

More than end-point, it's about harm throttling. Cigarettes will kill you, but there's only so many cigarettes you can smoke per day.

Limit gambling to symbolic amounts (maybe a monthly limit of the minimum salary in that country), and see how it goes.

You might even have gambling companies lobbying to increase the minimum salary!

recursivedoubts• 4 months ago

Crazy how we (the US) just decided as a society that gambling was not only not illegal anymore but that it was perfectly reasonable to integrate it deeply into every sporting event possible in a span of about five years.

We didn't decide that, btw.

epolanski4• 4 months ago

And not just sports, but world events where insiders can have the financial incentives to make terrible things happen.

But say that, and the same non sensical asinine crowd that spammed about crypto future or NFTs will tell you that's just to have more accurate information and you don't get it.

bonesss• 4 months ago

As an extension of that kind of betting, a sitting President owning a crypto coin, and private social media platform he bolsters with his official duties, are shocking departures from norms around self-enrichment.

tim333• 4 months ago

And they say crypto has no use cases.

ludston• 4 months ago

I mean if it didn't make the gambling organizations more money they wouldn't do it. Gambling industry has always been about how much wealth it can extract from the punters without being regulated for it.

Hopefully this research ends up being used to justify more gambling regulations, but governments are addicted to the gambling lobby donations so who knows what will happen.

kelseyfrog5• 4 months ago

If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility?

snarfy2• 4 months ago

If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

That's not how addiction works.

chrislh• 4 months ago

I highly (and regularly) recommend reading Gabor Mate's "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts"

It's an enlightening read on addiction that will make you more empathetic for addicts of all types: gambling, substances, shopping, whatever.

Definitely worth a look if you find yourself asking "Why don't they just stop?"

https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addict...

kelseyfrog5• 4 months ago

If someone cannot stop gambling, then what moral responsibility do gambling organizations have when giving them offers?

jazzpush22• 4 months ago

It was legal up til a few years ago. Take a guess why it's not now (or just read the news).

| If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

If this is serious, lol. "Why are you addicted to X. Just stop, it's easy!"

bombcar• 4 months ago

“Stop being poor.”

akramachamarei7• 4 months ago

Downvoting privileges can't come soon enough.

yearolinuxdsktp• 4 months ago

If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

Because harm does not guarantee control.

When it becomes compulsive, it’s not a simple cost-benefit choice anymore. People can know it’s hurting them and still feel driven to keep doing it.

The dopamine rush of gambling means the brain can get stuck chasing relief, hope, or reward, despite also knowing that it is destructive.

If gambling orgs do something that you know causes harm, why isn't the a legal sense of responsibility?

Because it’s not that easy to prove responsibility in the face of powerful money lobbying and victim-blaming. Shame and stigma around addiction means people don’t come forward. Freedom argument comes in that not everyone who gambles is an addict, so restricting it takes freedom away. The same argument is used to push the personal responsibility angle.

Ultimately I think the way the gambling orgs cover their ass is by advertising gambling addiction helplines and adding small disclaimers to call those lines if you have a problem: “that’s it, legislators, we are clearly giving them the tools to help themselves, and that shows us exercising responsibility. Bombarding gamblers with offers is simply marketing and creating engagement for our business, you can’t make that illegal.”

Do they have moral responsibility to not exploit addicted gamblers? I would argue, yes, they do. But unless you prohibit all gambling marketing, how would you accomplish this moral responsibility even if the gambling company agreed it had it? It’s not like addicts identify themselves or that you can filter your marketing easily to people without problems. This is why the solutions have been on outlawing the whole thing, because it’s really hard to operate as a business without the societal cost.

tim-projects2• 4 months ago

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNgQf-DaGU

sfn422• 4 months ago

If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?

Because they're stupid. Gamblers are idiots, gambling companies prey on the dumb. Anyone who understands the very basic math behind the games understands that it's pointless to play, you'll just lose more the more you play. That's the whole point. It's not even a secret, you can find the exact odds for each game.

Poker is different as you're playing other players rather than the house but it's still a negative sum game as the house takes a cut so you have to be better than the others to play. And if you're a reasonably intelligent person you'll just bet a little and accept your losses and move on. Or not play at all. Idiots will do dumb stuff like bet way more than they can afford, then they won't have money to pay their mortgage, rent etc and so on. People call it an addiction but I'm pretty sure it's mostly just being really really stupid. Can't be addicted to gambling if you aren't dumb as a rock.

beloch• 4 months ago

“Although the findings relate to direct marketing, I see no reason why the same or similar adverse effects wouldn’t occur for gambling advertising on TV or social media.”

Controlling/banning advertising for Alcohol and Tobacco results in significant health benefits. Sports gambling used to be illegal in many places or limited to specific places. Now that it's available in your pocket, like a pack of smokes or a flask of whisky, why wouldn't advertising triggers, direct or otherwise, be effective at encouraging susceptible people to partake? This is not a surprising result. It's the inaction of most governments that is surprising.

jazzpush22• 4 months ago

It's everywhere on YouTube, usually as a 'hidden' ad in the alt-right manosphere (e.g. the recent Nick Shirley video he wears a sweatshirt for a gambling site throughout, with constant name drops of it that aren't over ads).

Disgusting behavior, especially coming from those who often claim their content is to improve things. Hypocrites across the board.

epolanski4• 4 months ago

I see Kalshi promoted on many sports highlights videos on YouTube.

cm20122• 4 months ago

The US Supreme Court made it illegal for states to ban gambling ads, as a first amendment issue. I think it was a bad decision.

fc417fc8023• 4 months ago

I wonder if they would overturn that if sufficient evidence of harm were demonstrated. They've been remarkably consistent about permitting violations of constitutional rights where the government can unambiguously demonstrate a pressing need.

3eb7988a1663• 4 months ago

Then why was it possible to ban cigarette commercials on TV? Or is it just that they cannot ban the ads in general? You have no right to the airwaves, so television access is easy to restrict.

Bratmon• 4 months ago

Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association, Inc. v. United States (1999) makes it illegal for the government to ban advertising of legal gambling in the US.

lokar2• 4 months ago

That was because they allowed advertising for some forms of (legal) gambling but not others.

mrmincent2• 4 months ago

I used to work for a (now defunct) wagering operation. From my understanding even internally the marketing and business guys would’ve preferred the advertisements to be banned. It’s such an effective customer acquisition tool that the only way to compete is to spend insane amounts on marketing, because if you don’t, all of your competitors are and you’ll go bust. A ban would drastically level out the playing field and make things more sustainable.

The only ones that don’t want the ban are the ones selling the advertising slots. No way they’re giving up the gravy train.

nswango• 4 months ago

Are you claiming that advertising doesn't increase the total gambling spend?

aenis• 4 months ago

And the 2nd level consequence of that levelling the playing field would be more competition, and fewer huge, powerful gambling companies. Fewer, huge companies have the money and skills to buy politicians (exhibit one: "prediction markets"). Banning ads would be a net positive for the addicts, and net negative for politicians, hence it won't happen in our current universe.

abcde6667772• 4 months ago

I've always found the marketing around gambling (and most things really) completely disgusting. As a society I think we're far too tolerant of these things.

A lot of the ads basically go along the lines of: 'you could win big and have a great time, awesome! (disclaimer: will probably ruin your life)'.

It should be like it is with smoking - photos of lung cancer patients on the package. People will still do it of course but at least it's not falsely advertised.

So the gambling ads should be things like, that moment where your wife finds out you've drained the family's savings and the house is about to be re-possessed. Yeah.

snarfy2• 4 months ago

south park alcohol commercial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Cg8klY9JI

abcde6667772• 4 months ago

I love Matt and Trey XD

epolanski4• 4 months ago

And gambling, same as prediction markets, has literally no positive social outcome.

toraway• 4 months ago

Okay, but have you considered that thanks to Polymarket, society was able to intuit within mere minutes that Khamenei was most likely dead when the odds jumped to 99%?

No more need to rely on MSM or governments, it's all just math and data (odds jumped entirely based on Reuters newswire update posting a quote from an unnamed Israeli source).

And as a bonus, people lost a bunch of money "winning" that trade!

xXSLAYERXx2• 4 months ago

At this point I question whether they should even be allowed to advertise.

nsnzjznzbx• 4 months ago

No. A lot of the Australian ads play on the "this gimmick feature means if you lose you win!"

What it aleays means is you still win or lose a bet they just shuffled the permutations so that you win and lose in different outcomes.

But emotiionally they sell it as them giving you a chance. Pretty manipulative.

Examples would be like "money back if your horse comes second" or "bet on horse coming 3rd 4th or 5th" or "if your team is up at half time we count it as a win".

They are just offering a different wager!

array_key_first2• 4 months ago

It shouldn't even be allowed to exist, there are literally zero positive outcomes for anyone. On aggregate, people just lose money. And no, it's not entertainment.

And for the operator, they make money by... doing nothing? That's a huge red flag. Usually if that's the case, then the business is not legitimate.

underwater• 4 months ago

Just ban it. The only defense for our lives being flooded with advertising is that it helps markets be more efficient.

But the most efficient gambling provider is the one that extracts the most money from its customers. Helping gambling companies be successful is a net loss to society.

rcxdude3• 4 months ago

By that argument the companies that are 'most efficient' are the ones that extract the most money. Efficiency is a property of both sides of the equation, and by that light I would say the most efficient gambling provider is the one that charges the least money for the most excitement about the result (which is the positive outcome that gamblers are purchasing, essentially). But to me the ill effects on those who are addicted is enough that the advertising should just be banned anyway.

rcxdude3• 4 months ago

I think an honest gambling ad would include wins and losses at an appropriate ratio and emphasize the excitement as opposed to the payout. I do think the majority of people engaging in gambling engage with it in that way (even if I don't understanding it), and that the people it effects so extremely negatively are a smaller minority. But, a) that smaller minority still likely makes up a very large fraction of these companies income stream, and b) the harm is large enough that banning the advertising is still I think the better option, anyhow.

Invictus07• 4 months ago

why can't we have a law that just caps your gambling losses? Everyone gets a federally issued gambling license tied to your ID, if you lose more than X amount the casino is no longer legally allowed to let you play. Casual gamblers can still enjoy, problem gamblers get cut off; just like with alcohol at the bar.

santoshalper2• 4 months ago

For the same reason it isn't outlawed to begin with. It makes some wealthy, influential people even wealthier. They, not we, control our government.

quickthrowman• 4 months ago

Someone could create a market where problem gamblers can buy wagering power (the ability to risk more after reaching their own loss cap) from non-gamblers unless you force physical in person gambling with ID checks.

Gambling should return to being legal in Vegas and on reservations, 24/7 gambling anywhere is very problematic.

bluGill2• 4 months ago

They can but most non gamblers wouldn't partictpate. Many non gomblers won't particitate because they might go to vegas this year and so want the chance.

alex435782• 4 months ago

Alcohol should only be legal in pubs and bars; alcohol in Disney World, on planes, and in grocery stores is very problematic.

Invictus07• 4 months ago

your market idea makes no sense, and it could be outlawed easily.

hattmall• 4 months ago

Interesting approach but crack is illegal and still people are addicted to it.

Invictus07• 4 months ago

your point is not clear to me. alcohol is legal and people are addicted to it

Terr_3• 4 months ago

I like it in principle, but the pathologically addicted already make additional accounts and pay other people to acquire them.

So it may help by stopping some people from getting to that point, but as a safety net, an important chunk of the victims will still punch right through it.

Invictus07• 4 months ago

Adding friction helps

Marsymars3• 4 months ago

That effectively destroys the industry, since 90% of revenue comes from 10% of customers.

jbxntuehineoh2• 4 months ago

yeah, good. okay.

sfn422• 4 months ago

Some gambling companies may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

akramachamarei7• 4 months ago

Sounds like a worthwhile use of the taxpayer's dollar.

Invictus07• 4 months ago

you can even make gamblers pay to apply for the license

mothballed2• 4 months ago

When online sports gambling started in the US they were offering $500-$1000 of free bets to sign up. Very tempting to sign up, even though I don't gamble anymore than about once a decade, but I decided whoever did that offer was probably smarter than me about who would win out in the end.

I've been around the block long enough to know you never take an 'easy profit' deal from someone who is in the business of making money from them while in their own domain.

xXSLAYERXx2• 4 months ago

It was truly a wild time. All the books desperate for action in this new online gambling world (US). I went from book to book, took "advantage" of their promos, never collected a dime. When I was up, I bet more. Hit zero? Go to the next book. Their lines were better anyway ;)

Terr_3• 4 months ago

while in their own domain

There's a certain poker quip which I like to use and apply to other contexts, such as active investing: "If you look around the table can't tell which player is the sucker, you're the sucker."

In other words, beware entering into a game where the rules ensure somebody will be victimized. This is especially true when many of the existing denizens spend much much more time and effort and finagling than you'll ever want to match.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." -- W.O.P.R, War Games (1983)

AlotOfReading• 4 months ago

All too often I look over at other tables and see that the suckers are friends and family.

Loocid• 4 months ago

It was actually free money assuming you had the resolve to stop once you claimed the bonus (presumably most people didnt). As long as you were laying the other side of your bet on an exchange you could extract the full value of your free bets risk free.

I collected a few grand back then, however those sort of promotions are now illegal where I live.

wat10000• 4 months ago

There are sometimes free lunches out there to be had. They’re playing the averages and accepting some losses if they know they’ll make it up from other customers. But you’d better be sure you’re not one of the suckers if you do it.

rsync2• 4 months ago

“… you never take an 'easy profit' deal from someone who is in the business of making money from them while in their own domain…”

Laura ingalls wilder said it best, in Farmer Boy:

“never bet your money on another man’s game”

szge• 4 months ago

I'm in Canada where the promotions aren't quite as aggressive, but I've collected in the ballpark of $10k over the past three years through these free bet sportsbook promotions as well as collecting daily bonuses from this new wave of "sweepstakes" online casinos.

To make the "free" money and not ruin your life, You must have the discipline to look at things from a purely numbers perspective. It has to be mechanical and not emotional. If some action is +EV, and bet sizing is correct relative to variance, then you should perform the action. Never chase losses with a -EV bet.

The terrible thing about gambling is that there is no limit to how much you can lose, and you can also lose way more money than you actually have. It's a dangerous game.

utopiah2• 4 months ago

Can't wait to see how this (rather unsurprising yet important finding) is going to get abused for and with AI :

"Hey, I see we haven't chat / you didn't vibe code for few days now, how about you get 1000 free tokens and we just see where that lead us?"

It perfectly aligns with sycophantic interaction and then roulette outcome one gets, sure it might not work 100% of the time but it works most of the time and "I" as a user somehow "get it" more than AI researcher so "I" can get it to work for me.

Brilliant.

vlabakje90• 4 months ago

You'll enjoy this one:

“Parachute Use to Prevent Death and Major Trauma When Jumping from Aircraft: Randomized Controlled Trial.” BMJ, vol. 363, 2018, k5094. https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

shepherdjerred• 4 months ago

Is this real?

hebelehubele2• 4 months ago

Conclusions Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

rvz• 4 months ago

Anthropic is already starting to do this regularly with "usage promotions" [0] which is another way of a casino giving free $20 spins to gamblers (vibe-coders in this case) to keep gambling - or in this case, keep spending tokens on Claude.

I brought this up previously [1] and recently [2] it and I made that accurate comparison as a form of gambling and got immediately flag'd despite that being correct.

[0] https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14063676-claude-march...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47381597

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47429184

utopiah2• 4 months ago

I brought this up previously [1] and recently [2] it and I made that accurate comparison as a form of gambling and got immediately flag'd despite that being correct.

Well FWIW I see you and agree with you.

deaux• 4 months ago

I hate this kind of research. Or well, I hate that it has any influence at all, that it matters.

This kind of research being that which shows an obvious harm that we all know about. It should have zero influence because it is blindingly obvious. Namely because if the title wasn't true, betting companies wouldn't be spending lots of money on it in the first place. But they are, as everyone who lives in the UK can tell. So we know. So this study shouldn't influence policy in the slightest. But it does.

I hate it because there's by definition a gap of years between A. all of us knowing that a phenomenon is harmful B. the study coming out. And then another gap of many years between the study and actual policy changes.

Here's my request to people in academia who do studies like these - which is admittedly a tiny percentage of academia. Just fudge the numbers and publish it a year earlier. Use LLMs to generate the text. It would be a huge boon to society. We all know it's true, so you're not doing anything wrong. Your quest for honesty is hurting everyone. The actual data is pointless.

It's like gathering real data on whether pigeons will indeed eat sunflower seeds if thrown on the ground in front of them, versus just making it up. Maybe such a study hasn't been done yet, but it literally doesn't matter because we know the outcome. There's zero gain from actually doing the study versus saying that yes, pigeons will generally do so.

akramachamarei7• 4 months ago

Personally, I prefer my authoritarianism without a side of academic misconduct, thank you very much.

tim-projects2• 4 months ago

Fun fact: gambling companies increasingly also invest in mental health service companies, so that they can profit from both sides.

That's what they mean when they say the house always wins.

Obscurity4340• 4 months ago

Horizontal integration

apt-apt-apt-apt• 4 months ago

Study seems flawed– it preselects two different audiences (allow/not-allow offers mapping to something like low/high interest in gambling), then attributes the offers as the cause rather than the effect of selecting different audiences.

systoll• 4 months ago

The second paragraph of the article somewhat misrepresents the study.

There wasn't a group that chose to opt out, and another group that chose not to. Everyone agreed to be in the study, and then a random half of the cohort was removed from the mailing lists.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.70369

testemailfordg2• 4 months ago

Isn't it the same for tobacco and alcohol ads?

mock-possum• 4 months ago

That’s real interesting - being bombarded with offers is kind of a huge turnoff for me. Wonder if there’s some kind of correlation between that, and my general distaste for gambling/betting.

Ancalagon• 4 months ago

This feels like what the Robinhood app does to me

Bombarding gamblers with offers greatly increases betting and gambling harm

Related Stories