Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of arguments and concerns by actors

From: ‘We are not the ones to blame’. Gamblers’ and providers’ appraisal of self-exclusion in Germany

Gamblers

Governmental providers

Commercial providers

SE has benefits but there are limitations

- Complexity of the system

- High effort of the exclusion process

- No ID controls

- Possibility of shifting to other venues

Early recognition and actively addressing gamblers

- Lack of interest in gambler protection by providers

- Lack of information on self-exclusion

- Lack of support and actively addressing by providers

- Conflict of interests/role for providers

Length and revocation of SE

- Duration of offered temporary exclusion too short

- Necessity of revocation possibilities with realistic barriers after the minimum length

The underlying idea of self-exclusion is positive, but it does not work

- Possibilities of shifting to governmental or online gambling for excluded gamblers

- Necessity of tackling causes for gambling addiction instead of solely excluding gamblers

- Lack of problem recognition by gamblers

Early recognition and actively addressing gamblers.

- Gamblers’ disapproval of being actively addressed Lying, denying and downplaying by gamblers

- Casino visits as a hobby and social meeting points

- Problems mainly caused by gambling halls, illegal and online gambling (“hypocrisy of the staff members in gambling halls”)

Length and revocation of SE

- Heterogenous views on length and revocation of SE

- Necessity of individualized regulations

If SE worked as intended, it would be an appropriate measure as people with gambling problems should be prevented from gambling

- Necessity of additional psychological support in addition to SE

Early recognition and actively addressing gamblers

- Providers already take sufficient responsibility

- Training (e.g., for actively addressing) perceived important and helpful

- Lack of problem recognition by gamblers

- Gamblers’ disapproval of being actively addressed no chance for staff to be successful in addressing gamblers

- Gamblers’ reactions on being actively addressed: aggression, anger, denial

- Language barriers for staff and gamblers

Length and revocation of SE

- Necessity of individualized regulations regarding duration of SE