The new proposals to prevent the problems related to the game ... they make people discuss

wednesday 6 december 2017
In Igaming and online game

A way to prevent pathological game (GAP) could be to increase the tax levy and put a maximum roof to the winnings. But are we sure?

According to reports from the head, the Ministry of Health would have proposed New guidelines for the prevention of the pathological game. Between these, the increase in tax levy and the introduction of a maximum roof for winnings, both for VLT in the area and for online casino games. In essence, a system should be predicted to reduce the probability of winning the players so that these are less brought to a type of pathological game. It looks like a true contradiction.

Currently the tax levy on the VLT is 6%, while the one on the Oonline reaches 20% of the game margin, reasons why VLT, slot and online games have percentages of return in winnings to very high players, also of 98 %.

In this regard, here are some salient points regarding the new proposed guidelines:

  • 1) Prevention through the "regulation of the distribution of winnings/losses [...] an effective prevention technique could be to increase the tax levy at a percentage of 10-12%" (for VLT).
  • 2) "A percentage of maximum winnings set by the state. That is, the edge of the managers would be fixed by the state and in this way the winnings could be further reduced".
  • 3) The gradual introduction of these innovations would allow "a settlement of the whole process without moving many players to illegal online sites".

Some doubts about the validity of these statements

The proposals seen previously are based on the desire to limit the winnings or at least the payout percentages. This would be obtained directly by imposing a maximum roof and indirectly by increasing taxes on games (the operators would have fewer income and the state would collect more).

What leaves a little perplexed is the potential usefulness of a forced reduction in the winnings, which The player seems to be disadvantaged rather than helping him in the prevention of the gapnull If on the one hand it is true that the idea of "chasing the winnings" leads to play longer, as well as obtaining a series of small winnings in a repeated way, it must also be admitted that after all you play to try to winnull This is the very essence of gambling, activities to always lead in a safe and controlled way.

Another doubt that we want to raise concerns the third statement: according to our point of view A forced reduction in winnings could push many players to turn to those who work in the illegal game market, thus frustrating the efforts made and the results obtained in recent years in the fight against the "submerged" game. It doesn't matter if the process is gradual or immediate: if the players realize that the probability of winnings have lowered, it is likely that a part of them try to play where it has more chances to pocket something, in a legal or illegal way. At this point there would be an even worse effect, because the pathological game would also be linked to the problem of illegal game and without any protection tool.

A possible alternative: limit losses instead of winnings

A possible alternative to the proposals of the Ministry of Health could be that of limit the amount of losses rather than that of the winningsnull That is, once a player has reached the maximum limit imposed, then he can no longer bet in any game and through any operator. This solution would be unforgettable without a doubt at least as regards casino and online slot.

The realization of this solution could provide for the creation of a national database shared among all operators, which the latter can access to check whether the player has reached the limit or not. It would be an evolution compared to the current self-life and self-exclusion systems that are already active today on all the game platforms certified by the Customs and Monopolies Agency (ADM).

A system should also be studied to establish what the loss limits for each player can be. This obviously is only our subjective opinion, but we are sure that the reduction of winnings will not make many players happy.