Šimon Vincze: “We aim to develop a more comprehensive self-exclusion program than the ones that are in place right now”

Šimon Vincze is Casino Guru's Head of Sustainable & Safer Gambling. He manages long-term projects primarily related to social responsibility to make the entire online gambling industry safer for everyone. If you want to read about his projects in more detail, check out another Insiders article.

Šimon goes into detail regarding the Global Self-Exclusion Initiative, focusing on the Self-Exclusion Standards. He explains the motivations behind the Initiative's formation, the project's current phase, the person in charge, and its end goal.

Why is it important to lay the groundwork for global self-exclusion regulations? Who makes decisions on what the best practices are? Can operators, regulators, and players themselves benefit from broader self-exclusion? Šimon Vincze answers.

Q: Šimon, for those who don't know yet, what inspired the initiation of the Global Self-Exclusion Initiative?

In our work at Casino Guru, particularly in handling complaints and analyzing the online casino market, we've recognized a global inadequacy in the current self-exclusion landscape. The reason is simple – the scope for self-exclusion has limitations.

Currently, individuals seeking to opt out of all casinos lack a viable option. The most extensive exclusion is within national schemes, which means that the players can exclude themselves only from online casinos licensed in their country. However, there are hundreds of other online casinos where they could continue to play.

Q: How would you describe the overall goal of the Initiative?

The goal is to create an international system that would allow the possibility for a person to opt out of a larger number of operators than is currently possible. Even though it might not be possible to reach 100% coverage, we aim to develop a more comprehensive program than the one that is in place right now.

Q: How did previous efforts to establish a global scheme for self-exclusion turn out?

There were afew that Iknow of, but they were generally unsuccessful. Prior to the widespread use of national self-exclusion schemes, a group in the online casino and betting industry attempted a similar initiative, but the lack of commercial potential caused it to fail.

We think we have a better chance of succeeding now. Our strategy is to promote self-regulation among operators and invite casinos to voluntarily join our program because we can show them that it will make their business more sustainable and enhance their reputation.

Q: What does defining the rules for self-exclusion in a global scheme look like?

First of all, the development of Bluepaper, which outlined the ways in which the global scheme could function in specific online gambling scenarios, was a significant turning point for us. After that, we were trying to figure out what to do next. I was especially interested in the guidelines that should be followed when someone wants to exclude themselves.

What time frames should be available, what policies should apply when a player requests to renew his account, and should this even be possible? What should be the format of the request, and what should be the turnaround time for it? Those were the questions I was unable to answer for myself.

The problem is that practically all jurisdictions have different setups for it, and many regulations lack detailed specifications for this process. The operators were responsible for the details and their implementation. This leaves a gap in our understanding of what should be included in an international scheme of this kind.

Q:Is that how the idea to focus on Self-Exclusion Standards within the Initiative came about?

Exactly. I began with the idea that the project must be of high caliber if we want the operators to support it. The system needs to be very good. We began searching for best practices, or, better said, standards.

While looking for answers, I noticed Dr Margaret Carren's work. She was working on a project for the European Betting and Gaming Association, which is an association of operators and other iGaming organizations in Europe.

She examined how the EU recommendations were incorporated into laws regarding player protection and how these practices should be established, which included self-exclusion. I spoke with Margaret, presented her with our plan, and we began working together.

We both understand that unless we have harmonized standards in the international market, not only for self-exclusion but also in other areas, it will be difficult to measure success or failure. Furthermore, we are aware that the current situation creates an unequal level of protection for players in various jurisdictions, which we are working to improve.

The best part is that the resulting standards, or recommendations,will be applicable to all online self-exclusion systems. We will primarily draw inspiration from this for the globalscheme.

Q: How does this kind of collaboration work? And what place within the Initiative do Dr Margaret Carran and you, as Head of Sustainable & Safer Gambling for Casino Guru hold?

Even though the idea of creating Self-Exclusion Standards was developed as part of the Initiative, the results of the Standards will apply to all forms of online self-exclusion, and this work is not directly connected to the project of Global Initiative.

So, when it comes to Self-Exclusion Standards, Casino Guru is currently working with Dr Carren, who is in charge of the overall execution and specifics of this project. That is, Casino Guru has commissioned City University to develop this project through the work of Margaret.

At the same time, when this project is completed, it will be presented as an open document that will remain City University's intellectual property, ensuring a certain level of openness.

It will be available to the entire industry, allowing for further research based on that paper. This paper is subject to academic standards, for which Margaret is responsible and serves as the project's leader; she is also the chairwoman of our workgroup.

Casino Guru and I have also agreed to facilitate both physical and remote meetings. I only participate in the project as a workgroup member, contributing to the debate with my own expertise.

Our common goal is to bring something to the industry that not only makes sense, but also has a tangible and reliable process to back it up. It will be clear who participates in the project and how the results were achieved.

Q: Could you elaborate on Phase I of the Standards creation process? As it is already closed, could you shed more light on the purpose of this phase and the results you were able to achieve?

Phase I is more of a practical component known as Research and Fact Finding. Margaret investigated what research had been conducted on self-exclusion as well as what literature had been created so that we could draw upon it.

At the same time, she examined five selected jurisdictions and how the rules are established there. Data from Casino Guru, as well as data on player complaints about self-exclusion, were included in this process, providing us with insight into what works and what does not.

The result of this first phase was a document called Terms of Reference. It includes not only literature but also factual information, and it is written in the style of a standard academic paper. We see this document as a source of factual information on which Phase II can lean.

Q: During Phase II, you focus on collaboration within professional workgroup. How's it going?

In Phase II, we are currently focusing on how to fill gaps in The Terms of Reference, as research on certain aspects of the self-exclusion process is limited. We collaborate with others in the industry who have relevant experience. Our workgroup consists of ten people, each from a different area of iGaming and with a unique perspective and expertise.

We have operators represented, with Casino Guru as an affiliate, and we also have several members of the group who have worked for or collaborated with operators.We included people with regulatory or association experience, as well as people who have helped players struggling with problem gambling.

It is great that these people represent professional knowledge, but it is equally important for the project to include the lived experience of people who have dealt with unsustainable and problematic gambling issues.

A public representative, known as a layperson, is also a member of the group, ensuring that our conversations and results are understandable to both the players and the public. You can find information about everyone involved on the Self-Exclusion Standards page.

Q: Two main goals for Phase II are: (1) to reach a consensus on as many details of the self-exclusion process as possible (2) to deliver a recommended set of rules for online self-exclusion based on the evidence found in the first phase as well as the lived-in experience and expertise of the professionals involved. What are the results of Phase II so far?

As you mentioned, we want to develop guidelines for the self-exclusion process based on our expertise. We accomplish this through a series of in-person and remote meetings. We are already in the final stages, and many things require detailed analysis, which consumes a significant amount of our time and energy.

However, I believe we complement each other well and have a well-defined flow. We actively seek to ensure that our decisions reflect the professional viewpoints of all parties involved. We are currently taking over the final recommendations, which should result in the so-called Interim Guidelines agreed upon by this group.

Q: Can you provide insights into the challenges and successes experienced during Phase II?

We try to be specific and frequently use different exercises. For example, we divided our workgroup into two teams, each with the task of creating a draft or suggestion for a specific area, which we then exchanged among ourselves. We looked into where the self-exclusion information should be placed on the website so that players could easily access it, and how this information should be presented so that the players can absorb it effectively.

Each team had its own flipchart on which they attempted to create some sort of draft, possibly a design of where and how it should be located, in order to achieve our goal. It was primarily about making the player aware of the possibility of self-exclusion while also ensuring that it was available in the places where they would naturally look for it.

Q: What are your plans for Phase III?

Phase III continues to involve a smaller portion of our workgroup's collaboration as we seek insight and feedback from the larger industry to bring a broader form of inclusion. The third phase is referred to as Broader Consultations.

It is during this phase that the Interim guidelines, as well as the reasoning behind them, are made available for industry review. All organizations involved in this process will have the opportunity to express their position or viewpoint on what we have agreed on. Feedback will be greatly appreciated because it is the only way we can achieve a quality result.

Q: To what extent will you consider this feedback?

At length, as it is a very important part. The workgroup's work does not end with the completion of Phase II, and feedback from the industry will provide us with another opportunity to improve things. The workgroup will discuss the feedback and decide which things will be implemented and which will not.

We will all meet again to agree on the definitive guidelines, which should already be included in the final paper— our final product. We should have enough time to complete this by September 2024. However, it is not a given – we expect these things to be stretched. It would greatly speed things up if as many organizations as possible took the initiative to provide feedback.

Q: How will organizations that provide feedback be selected?

Personally, I don't see any barriers. I believe it should be an organization with credibility and impact. In terms of the spectrum, we would like to hear from all stakeholders, including operators, the operators' association, regulators, non-profits, and various other organizations, including those dedicated to people who have or are experiencing self-exclusion or have a gambling problem.

Q: What should be the end result of your work?

Finally, we will have a final paper that will be published under the auspices of City University, with the goal of raising awareness about this project within the industry. This final paper will be available to all stakeholders, a public document from which regulators or operators can draw inspiration, and the only one of its kind. There is currently no consensus on best practices for international self-exclusion.

By combining the commercial sector and the research sector, we put great emphasis on ensuring the impact of this research, so it doesn't get lost among the journals. It will then be my and Casino Guru's responsibility to ensure that this document not only becomes a part of the global scheme but also serves as an inspiration for single operator schemes or schemes across jurisdictions.

This interview is part of Casino Guru Insiders, a series of interviews during which experts from Casino Guru share their unique workflow, reveal insider information, and offer an exclusive overview of experience-packed know-how.

Image credit: Casino Guru News