MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409662163 · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2025.108363

Never tell me the odds: Typical return-to-player information increases gamblers’ perceived chances of winning

2025· article· en· W4409662163 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leonardo Weiss‐Cohen, Jamie Torrance, Philip Newall

Bibliographic record

VenueAddictive Behaviors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta Gambling Research Institute, University of CalgaryResponsible Gambling FundGambling Research Exchange OntarioUniversity of BristolEconomic and Social Research InstituteUniversity of NottinghamVictorian Responsible Gambling Foundation
KeywordsOddsPsychologySocial psychologyMedicineLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Previous research on RTP messaging used higher-than-average payouts. • We test the impact of an industry-average RTP message. • RTP message increased perceived chances of winning when compared to no information. • House edge messages performed better than RTP, but no better than no information. • Gamblers deserve better information about gambling products. Previous research has shown that gamblers consistently misunderstand return-to-player (RTP) information, and participants shown an RTP of 93% reported that they were more likely to win than those who were shown no information. However, this effect might have been inflated by a higher-than-average RTP percentage. We experimentally test the impact of showing an industry-average RTP message of 90% on gamblers’ perceived chances of winning, in two studies across two countries (UK and US). Slot players from Prolific (N = 6062) were shown either an RTP message (“This game has an average percentage payout of 90%”), two different House Edge (HE) messages (“This game keeps 10% of all money bet” or “This game is programmed to cost you 10% of your stake on each bet”) or No-Information, and asked to rate their perceived chances of winning at a new slot machine. Across both studies and countries, participants rated their perceived chances of winning as significantly higher with a typical 90% RTP message than with No Information, with large effect sizes ( ORs > 5). Both HE messages significantly outperformed RTP, but were no better than No-Information. These effects were moderated by PGSI in the No-Information condition, with participants with higher PGSI responding with higher chances of winning, but not in the other conditions. These results show an undesired side-effect of the consistently ineffective RTP information and confirm the superiority of HE over RTP, although none of the messages were superior to No-Information. Gamblers deserve to be better informed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictive BehaviorsSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207