Christine Hili joins Gaming Recruitment Solutions

Christine Hili has become the latest member of the team at gaming industry recruitment firm Gaming Recruitment Solutions (GRS).

The appointment of the Malta-based Hili helps GRS expand into the rest of Europe.

“We had decided to add resources to help us with the growth of the business, and Christine came to us at the perfect time,” said GRS Director Steven Jackson.

“Not only is she an experienced 360-degree recruiter, she is also based in one of the primary online gaming hubs and is an online betting and gaming specialist.”

GRS noted that it has been active across the spectrum of betting and gaming for the last nine years, with the recruitment of Hili intended to boost its presence in the online sector.

Hili commented: “I’m hugely excited to join GRS in their growth phase, and I think my 17 years of experience in online betting and gaming recruitment complements their presence in the industry.”

GRS added that it has been active on some large-scale projects recently, and is currently running a mass recruitment exercise for Europe’s first integrated casino resort in Cyprus.

Paul Sculpher, GRS Co-Director, commented: “We’ve been looking to add to the team for a while and Christine was too good an opportunity to miss. 

“Along with our admin support and other resourcing backup, adding Christine will allow us to add new clients and take excellent care of them, and I couldn’t be more excited about the future of the company with several large projects in the pipeline.”

PML training

If you need help with PML training, Marieanne has over 30 years' experience in the gambling industry. She's a friend of GRS, and provides personal management licence (PML) training to gambling companies who wish to ensure their PML holders fully understand their specific responsibilities, as well as to individuals who wish to expand their knowledge.

For more information contact Marieanne

Sports betting in the USA - growing pains?

Sports betting in the USA used to be something which publicly seemed to be considered somewhere between “a bit dodgy” and outright degenerate behaviour. It’s fair to say there was plenty of illegal bookmaking, and the availability of offshore bookies meant you’d probably have been able to get a bet on from most states; but betting has historically never been really considered fully legit. For decades a slew of betting-related scandals, from the 1919 World Series “Black Sox” through Pete Rose betting on baseball games he was managing and plenty of other points shaving / paid officials / high-profile addicts, meant it was held in low regard, legal in Nevada and treated with suspicion everywhere else.

There was plenty of resistance, too, to a top-level sports franchise in Las Vegas when the Golden Knights NHL expansion team was announced, with hand wringing over players being too close to temptation – conveniently ignoring that a) any top-level player (or anyone else) could have got a bet on any game illegally for decades and b) the temptations on offer in Las Vegas for young people with high incomes aren’t limited to gambling.

In any case, fast forward to right now and the explosion in sports betting is truly staggering. If you’ve been to the US recently and tried to watch a sporting event on TV,the avalanche of betting ads is, frankly, relentless. The speed and totality with which the major sports have suddenly embraced sports betting is equally staggering – I determined to write this article when, while I was watching a baseball show on a national network, the hosts highlighted a tweet which began “Betting is awesome.” It went on to detail how the tweeter and their father love a bet on a game while they’re watching live. I enjoy a bet and completely get the concept of having a bet to make the game more fun; but in most developed countries you don’t see that type of cheerleading for what is effectively a controlled substance. Not too many beer ads have the headline “boozing is awesome,” and there’s a reason for that. A cynical person might conclude that the reason for this Damascene conversion on behalf of the major sports has more to do with mountains of potential income from data rights and advertising revenue than a change in ethical considerations.

Predictably, there’s a massive state-by-state land grab for betting players right now – as each state opens up, depending on tax rates and other restrictions, vast sums of money are being expanded to try to be the critical first betting app on a new market’s phones. Elsewhere in this issue, Ozric Vandervelden talks about the hidden cost of bonus abuse – almost on an industrial scale, we suspect –but the other cost may be a tsunami of problem gambling behaviours.

The key question is what happens if it’s all unchecked, and what are legislators and operators doing to keep players safe? Worst case, if it were allowed to be a totally – well – Wild West situation, with everyone making a ton of money and huge numbers of unprotected punters getting into a horrific mess, would be a predictable fallout of crime and suicide; such as arguably has been seen in other jurisdictions when commercial concerns raced ahead of legal controls. There’s a counter argument to controls too, along the lines of “what’s the point when crypto bros and inexperienced stock pickers are leveraging up and taking immense risks, and Daily Fantasy Sports has such an impact.” But I’d argue sports betting is far “harder” gambling in terms of both speed of repeat staking, and core links to something every red-blooded American is supposed to love – sports.

I spoke with Bill Pascrell III (known affectionately in the industry as BP3), a partner in Princeton Public Affairs Group, who is involved in working with operators (including Entain) and regulators, about where the US is at right now. He was forthright about the need for safer gambling controls to be more than a box-ticking exercise, and recognises that it has to be a priority, not just for the sake of doing the right thing, but as a matter of survival for an embryonic industry in the US. He told me: “It’s useful to think where we started – offline sports betting used at one time to be controlled by the mob, and now we have many new entrants to the industry, there hasn’t been a foundation of responsible gambling policies. Here, VIP was generally a code name for an addict, and that has to change across the board”.

He believes that one key pillar regulation is to capture data so that it can be shared across operators; although he recognises that sharing data across states, in an environment where each state has its own legislation (and of course some have none) is more challenging. The concept of a national self-exclusion system, such as SENSE in UK offline casinos, seems along way away, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing that can be done.

He continued: “It’s time to stop just talking about problem gambling and find solutions. Clinical studies are required, such as the one currently commissioned at Rutgers University, so that solutions can be research and value driven.” Bill went on to tell me about initiatives his clients are looking at, data-driven mechanisms to warn the player when their behaviours begin to look like those of a problem gambler, perhaps resulting in pauses or slowdowns being suggested, or enforced. He also told me about ARC, a process whereby 72 different data points are used to form a profile of a player and their likely disposable income, which sounds like a much better way than the current UK system of interactions, questions, bank statements and gas bills, if it’s reliable. Some of the data is provided by the player, some open source material, but it certainly sounds like an interesting initiative. It's designed to provide the highest possible levels of player safety and protection, continuously upgrading and personalising protection for Entain's customers.

With this information in mind, I also spoke with Karim Chikh, Head of Legal and Compliance Analytics at Kindred Group, about how he saw best practise in what’s a much more mature online betting market in the UK and Europe. His primary point was that responsible gambling considerations should be part of the process as early as possible, and should be tailored to the player’s profile as it develops.

“It’s obviously difficult at first, when you know nothing about a player beyond perhaps a TransUnion credit check to make sure they’re not in the process of going bankrupt,” Karim told me. “But as your system sees gambling behaviours it can be set, for example, to deliver a popup after a certain length of play or another metric is triggered”. He was careful to point out that, while some elements of funding behaviour – multiple failed payments, rapid deposits, cancelling withdrawals – might indicate grounds for concern, there are lots of other behaviours that are worth monitoring.

Looking at the wider picture, the main concern is that the UK and wider European industry only got to where it is now – at least a safer regulatory structure than was in place before the 2017 Money Laundering Directive – because the societal impact became great enough to generate media stories, which in turn affected the politicians enough to drive them to deliver effective regulation. In a brand new market like the US, with the state-by-state structure of the evolving laws, there’s a short-term / long-term problem. There’s so much money to be made in the early years that there’s little incentive, beyond a purely ethical one, for firms to self-regulate before it’s enforced; and that creates scope for a lot of human harm before rules catch up.So what’s the answer, to make an embryonic industry sustainable in the US? Karim pointed to Kindred’s journey to zero (the mission to reduce percentage of revenue from harmful gambling to 0%) and collaborative approach, where it participates in conferences, commission research which is made public, and even share part of the logic behind its proprietary player monitoring system. True collaboration in a relatively fractured US market will be just as challenging as across Europe – if not more so – and the commercial driving force of maximising profit may lead some companies in the US to push until the regulators push back. We can only hope executives at a senior enough level will see the longer-term picture and recognise that hoovering up vast profits in the early days with little care for player protection will lead, inevitably, to a far harsher crackdown that will hurt everyone and torpedo the industry in the future.

Credit for this article goes to Gambling Insider.

Casinosaurus Rex

PAUL SCULPHER assesses what would happen if a UK casino now were to be run the same way as it would have in 1994…

Recently I was trawling through the murk of LinkedIn, as recruitment people are wont to do, when I came across an actual casino dinosaur. Now I think we all cling onto elements of our early careers as being the right way to do things, but this was a genuine “side bets are bad, open door is bad, technology is bad, all management since the 1990’s are useless number crunchers” Casinosaurus Rex individual. It got me to thinking – what if you ran a UK casino right now, today, in the same way as you’d have run one in the last year the old C. Rex appeared to think they were “properly” run, circa 1994? What would happen?

There are, to say the least, a few problems. I think the first one is pure commercials. I don’t think anyone would disagree that a good proportion of casino trade back in the 1990’s was from, shall we say, dubious sources. I was only a dealer (m’lud!) so I can say without fear of prosecution that I was 99% sure some of the bigger punters in the casino I trained in were criminals of some sort.

The idea of running source of funds checks for AML purposes in our 1994 casino, plonked into 2021, would be trouble. Not only would you never see the genuinely suspect players again, you would of course lose a good swathe of your non-criminal players, due to unwillingness to provide the information, laziness or fear of the taxman.  

So you’ve sliced out a good lump of your better players. That’s not the end of it, though, because you’re really going to struggle to replace them. You’re still in 24-hour rule territory, you see, so anyone who wants to visit has to have signed up 24 hours in advance. That kills the possibility of impulse visits unless you’ve a member in your party who can sign in their guests – although impulse visits aren’t likely unless people are walking right past, as you can’t advertise, not even a website. Back then all you could offer was prescribed-sized classified adverts for the restaurant.

The catering efforts are an interesting question. Casino catering in the UK has been downgraded over the years, from A La Carte menus cooked by serious chefs, to something in some cases not far north of a Wetherspoons menu. That’s not universally the case, but both the largest two chains of casinos have broadly standardised their menus and you won’t find too many kitchen workers paid a long way above minimum wage. I’m somewhat split on this issue – for smaller sites, I think you just need to have a food offer as fuel for gamers, but there’s still a sliver of market for customers who both want fine food and will game to any extent. One thing’s for sure, you’re not going to make significant profit from your upscale food offer, so it had better lead to crossover income.

Your other issue is the bar experience. A swanky bar is a key part of the process of turning people from non visitors to occasional visitors, to people who like to have a modest punt once they’re comfortable. But – oh no – 1994 rules mean you can’t have alcohol on the gaming floor (as anyone who worked as a shift manager around this period will have stated at least 100 times every Saturday night). Those of us working in casinos back then will also remember they weren’t the most welcoming of places, with thick smoke (not anymore!), low ceilings and usually a tiny bar, purely as a service.

The 1994 casino is a bit limited in terms of gaming options, as well. Just the two slots, which if we’re being honest were largely run back then as a mysterious box that was a pain in the backside to empty and count. No electronic roulette – the Casinosaurus doubtless does not approve anyway – so really it’s just tables. You’d just about got the option to offer Casino Stud Poker back then (and “Super Pan 9” – great) by 1994. Proper side bets were a gleam in someone’s eye.

Electronic roulette wheel spinning Paul Sculper blog image

Side bets are in fact a divisive issue, and I can see the argument for non-progressive bets both ways. Anyone can point to the revenue generated by them, but I don’t think many have assessed the impact of both the frustration caused by a slower game, and danger of rapid bankroll exhaustion. One thing’s for certain in my mind, though, progressive side bets are a must. They add a different dimension to casino gambling, where you can genuinely turn a £100 ($135.38) buy-in into life-changing money in one shot. Without them there’s an erosion of the casino experience for some people.

The challenges don't stop there, mind. You can't have debit cards, just three cheques per person, per day, backed up by a "Cheque Guarantee Card" (ask your parents, kids) unless you set up a complicated facility. ATMs weren't permitted, and by all means stick you smiling friendly faced receptionist out there on reception, but almost nobody had door security - I'm sure it'll be okay. That'll do nicely on a lively Friday night... and one more thing - you'll be needing to close at 4am, and 2am on a Saturday night, just when it's getting fun.

Even staffing was a ton easier back then, with far superior options for the skilled dealer abroad, when being a UK licensed casino professional meant something overseas. If you operate with the same bloated 1994 rota and super low gaming minimums to match, you’re just not going to make enough money, with staff far more expensive overall today. Oh and no tips to supplement the salary. In fact running a 2021 casino on a 1994 roster, with tipless wages adjusted to the point where you could actually get enough staff, bankrupts you before you’ve been trading a month.

Roulette wheel close up of number 35 Paul Sculpher blog post image

You’d need to adopt the old policy of banning fraternisation with customers, too – back then as a dealer you could get fired for being in a photo with a member of your casino. That works a lot better when you have a very small number of respectable players (respectable in terms of spend level, not always in terms of respectable individuals) than when you’re trying to bring new trade through the doors.

In short, if you tried to operate the same way today as you did in 1994, you’d be dead in the water. You can’t afford the staff you’d have had back then, your ancillary income is devastated, and a lump of your primary income is a victim of modern AML regulations. Online gaming soaks up some portion of your core market – the sofa can be more tempting as a gambling location than having to get up and put actual clothes on.  

Oh, and if you thought you were going to turn a blind eye to problem gambling issues, which operators might have done back then to a small extent (and there weren’t anything like the same regulations anyway), the combination of the National Self Exclusion Scheme and stringent penalties for not doing the right thing will see you in big trouble.

It’s easy to remember the golden days and for our Jurassic joker to pooh-pooh the efforts of managers since then, but the truth is the market and the operating environment has changed. In a dynamic world, adapting to change is key, and bleating that everything’s worse than it was when Casinosaurus roamed the pit just evokes thoughts of oncoming asteroids and imminent fossilisation.

There is more than one way to both skin a cat and run a casino – not necessarily complementary skills – but harking back to 27 years ago doesn’t form part of any method with a chance of success.

 

Paul Sculpher UK Gaming Consultant

Paul Sculpher, Gaming Recruitment Solutions, and Independent Gaming Consultant.

Credit for this article goes to Gambling Insider.

Time Spent Playing

Time played as a key metric to make gambling safer

Gaming Consultant at iGAM Consulting – LinkedIn comment:

Speaking from experience, there were players at various casinos in the US that would regularly gamble for periods of over 24 hours. If they were approached  about taking breaks the staff were met with abuse and cursing – something to do with the belief of the player that the machine was either “hot” or “warming up.” Not sure about the case mentioned, but sometimes you just cannot help people no matter what safeguards are put in place.



Guest Relation Executive at Bellagio Colombo – LinkedIn comment:

Many addicted players always play over 24-hour periods... I have seen a player who played on the table for three days... His excuse was it's hard for him to take a break from his work...



There’s no doubt that safer gaming is high on everyone’s list of issues for the industry. But we saw something in reply to a Gambling Insider LinkedIn post that, apart from anything else, highlighted how far we’ve come as an industry in the UK.

With this in mind, it’s interesting to look at the current mindset surrounding how long customers can play before some sort of interaction is triggered. The most interesting part of looking at this question has been the difference between the approaches of offline and online operators. I’ve shied away from the word “contrast” because clearly both sides are looking to accomplish the same goal, but their resources are certainly different.

Roulette wheel and ball with casino chips and cards Paul Sculpher blog image

Firstly I spoke with Jon Duffy, SVP of Corporate Assurance and Regulatory Affairs from Genting Casinos, for his view on the offline casino world. He pointed out that, in the bricks and mortar world, it’s more about customer behaviours than simply clocking time spent playing. He told me “we really don’t have a fixed time period after which we will interact. Our team are very experienced in identifying behaviours that represent risk indicators, and those indicators can appear regardless of time spent playing.”

When I asked Jon for some examples, he described some that will be familiar to anyone who has undergone problem gambling awareness training (as has every customer-facing Genting employee). Behaviours like becoming emotional due to gambling results, spending time around the gaming tables after a playing session has finished, and complaining that equipment is “rigged” are all red flags for responsible operators.

He also pointed out that there’s an increasing amount of data available to offline operators – loyalty cards give their team much of the data that online operators can wield, although unless the Gambling Review introduces mandatory carded play this data will always be incomplete. There have certainly been some spectacular failures to act responsibly by operators over the years, and one suspects not too many of them make it into the public domain unless the regulator steps in. If the Australian Daily Mail is to be believed, one of the current licensing challenges facing Crown Melbourne, for example, relates to a baccarat player involved in a 96-hour playing session, along with a host of other unbelievably long sessions.

I think it’s important to note that, particularly playing offline, most of us are used to the feeling that time passes very quickly in a casino, when you’re in perhaps a comfortable seat, with refreshments to hand, and maybe a relaxed atmosphere with friends. Gambling requires just enough attention to keep you interested, but not enough so that it’s draining.  However, there comes a point when a long session passes from, for most of us, “I’ve had (or lost) enough, time to go home” to, for some, something a little more unhealthy.

The equivalent in online play looks quite different from an operator’s point of view.   I spoke with Adele Farrell, Director of Compliance and Safer Gambling at Rank Group, for a view from the online side of things. Adele explained that online operators have more granular data than their offline equivalents (given that she takes care of both for Rank Group). “We have details of every hand, every staking decision, and every game selection for our players, so we are able to make decisions in a much more data-driven way,” she told me. “As regards time spent playing (TSP), this is one of the things that is fed into our algorithms and safer gambling models to identify customers who may be at risk or experiencing problem gambling. On its own, our players will see a pop-up on their screen once they reach one hour playing, suggesting they take a break, but that’s not the whole story.”

Poker game chips in the air Paul Sculpher blog image

The Gambling Commission’s advice note from June 2020 touched on session length in the context of additional risks posed by, effectively, lockdown boredom and noted that online sessions longer than one hour had increased by 23% on a like-for-like (equivalent pre-Covid month) basis. The conclusion was that, because it is simple enough for players to switch operators in the online world, interactions would be a more robust approach, so I asked Adele about her company’s approach to personal interactions.

Adele explained to me how a range of other factors will feed into the decision to trigger a personal interaction, keyed on changes of behaviour – such as a spike in deposits, velocity of play, frequency of play or indeed playing for longer periods at unsociable hours defined as “late night play.” That interaction might also be influenced by total spend, and the same data collected relating to customer due diligence for anti-money laundering and affordability; this can be useful to feed into customer reviews to help people who may be moving into having issues with their gambling. Rank recently unveiled a new real-time safer gambling monitoring desk, the new “Hawkeye” system will allow it to more quickly identify customer online behaviour that may require intervention.

In summary, Time Spent Playing is only a small part of the puzzle as regards detecting and interacting with people who may be experiencing problems with their gambling. It does seem the offline world and online world are at opposite ends of the spectrum, however. Online, you have access to perfect data, but far less of the softer information, so operators are trying to synthesise behaviour tracking from changes in measurable benchmarks. Offline, experienced team members have their eyes, experience and training to spot troubling behaviour, and are trying to improve the amount of hard data they collect via loyalty cards and other methods. Perhaps over time both ends of the industry will get closer to their shared goal – a blend of soft and hard data to better help the minority of customers who need our help.


Paul Sculpher, Gaming Recruitment Solutions, and Independent Gaming Consultant.

Credit for this article goes to Gambling Insider.