The Worst Sports Gambling Type

In-Play (also known as Live) Betting is the greater evil of sports gambling. While there does not seem to be a causal relationship between this type of betting and problem gambling, there is a strong relationship between the two. It often happens that problem gamblers favor this gambling type. The key characteristics of in-play betting include the fast frequency of events and the sense of urgency to make the bet. The impulsiveness and auto-pilot behavior hook players to bet on events they might not be interested in otherwise. Keeping the high interest in the game with in-play betting promotes players to get addicted further. No surprise, certain betting providers can make up to 80% of their revenue through in-play betting.

Authors of this review:

Nikita Goncharenko

Date of Publication:

16/10/2022

Academic Reference:

Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Griffiths, M., and Estévez, A. (2018). In-Play Betting, Sport Broadcasts, and Gambling Severity: A Survey Study of Spanish Sports Bettors on the Risks of Betting on Sport While Watching It. Communication & Sport. 8.

Tags:sports gambling data analytics

Key Ideas

There exists a perceived relationship between in-play (live) betting and problem gambling behavior. In-play betting is linked to instantaneous, "auto-pilot" behaviors.

One of the globally known sports betting operators (Bet365) defined that 80% of its revenues arrive from in-play betting markets. [NG: I can check if that's the general market situation.]

A variety of studies showed that heavy gamblers more than occasional gamblers bet on in-play markets. (Braverman et al., 2013; LaBrie et al., 2007; LaPlante et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2008) - though, there is no screening tool for problem gambling applied in those studies.

The screening tool for problem gambling divided players into 4 groups of gamblers: nonproblem, low-risk, moderate-risk, and problem gamblers. More information about the characteristics defining the groups can be found in the article by Lopez-Gonzalez, Estevez, and Griffiths (2018).

A more recent study by Hing, Li, Vitartas, & Russell (2018) identified 4 issues associated with in-play betting: higher frequency, higher expenditure, impulsiveness, and higher problem gambling severity.

The speed of live bets, as well as the increased frequency of events, are associated with the reasons for the dangerous behavior.

Sports betting providers create a sense of urgency by promoting live bets, which can lead to impulsive betting behavior.

This research showed several factors that unite problem gamblers. First and foremost, problem gamblers preferred in-play betting to before-event betting more than other groups. Problem gamblers seemed to live with their partner and had familial motives for sports betting. Yet, problem gamblers appeared to watch sports alone and had a higher involvement in watching sports. They also had a higher motivation to escape the routine and showed physical attraction to athletes on the screen.

Interestingly, the research did not show any causal relationship between in-play betting and problem gambling behavior.

Like the findings of Hing, et al. (2015), this study identified that gamblers with higher motivation to watch sports on the screen had a higher chance to appear in the group of problem gamblers. That could be associated with constant checking of how open bets are performing.

The data for this study was self-reported.

Citations

"The present study found that the frequency of in-play betting was significantly related to severity of gambling problems."

"Being able to bet upon what individuals are watching is the principal selling proposition of the product. ... Sports spectators in Spain ... are subject to continuous marketing stimuli to bet on sports."

"In-play betting comprises a simultaneous watching ... is also allied with second screen devices ... sport consumption indicated that in Western countries, individuals very frequently use second screen devices while watching sport."

"fans exhibit a durable optimistic bias that makes them more likely to foresee their team winning (Massey, Simmons, & Armor, 2011). On the other hand, some other bettors might want to offset a potential emotional loss by securing at least a financial gain by betting against their own team—what has been called "hedging against future failure" (Agha & Tyler, 2017)."

"British Gambling Commission, declared that in-play betting had "changed formerly "slow" forms of betting that traditionally had been considered to pose less risk of harm" into a more rapid and potentially harm-inducing type of gambling (p. 7)"

External References

Agha, Nola & Tyler, B. David. (2016). An investigation of highly identified fans who bet against their favorite teams. Sport Management Review. 20.

Braverman, J., Laplante, D., Nelson, S., and Shaffer, H. (2013). Using cross-game behavioral markers for early identification of high-risk internet gamblers. Psychology of addictive behaviors: journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors. 27.

Hing, N., Li, E., Vitartas, P., & Russell, A. M. T. (2018). On the spur of the moment: Intrinsic predictors of impulse sports betting. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34, 413-428.

Hing, N., Russell, A., Vitartas, P., and Lamont, M. (2015). Demographic, Behavioural and Normative Risk Factors for Gambling Problems Amongst Sports Bettors. Journal of Gambling Studies.

Lopez-Gonzalez, Hibai & Estévez, Ana & Griffiths, Mark. (2017). Controlling the illusion of control: a grounded theory of sports betting advertising in the UK. International Gambling Studies. 18. 1-17.

Massey, Cade & Simmons, Joseph & Armor, David. (2010). Hope Over Experience: Desirability and the Persistence of Optimism. SSRN Electronic Journal.