With this Master Thesis, providing Holland Casino with information how they can influence their win- expectation and win-experience, I gathered interesting insights of both fields of study (marketing and psychology). However, all these new insights that lead to the end-result of this research could not be accomplished without the help of a few inspiring people.

 Dr. Jelle Bouma and dr. Jan-Willem Bolderdijk for their feedback and clear insights. Dr. Jelle Bouma for his critical view, patience and brainstorming of new clear solutions. Dr. Jan-Willem Bolderdijk for his knowledge of psychology and tips and tricks of conducting a good research.

 Igor Houben, my supervisor of Holland Casino, with his effort guiding me through the ins and outs of Holland Casino, especially in this hectic period Holland Casino is facing.

 Henk Nijdam, manager casino staff in Groningen, who permitted me to conduct a real experiment in Holland Casino Groningen. This was a real challenge, but due to his help the experiment truly succeeded.

 Leon Piening, for volunteering in the experiment as croupier.

 Marijke Van Ark, Janinke Dekker and Joselien Pasman for helping me with recruiting the participants for the experiment.



Daniel Verschueren, for his critical and helpful feedback on this research.

(4)

Summary

The two concepts win-expectation and win-experience, as invoked in visitors, are two concepts Holland Casino (from now on: HC) tries to get a grip on. In dictionary terms win-expectation is the chance you will win the next gamble, whereas win-experiences are experiences, encounters and feelings perceived during winning. A higher win-expectation and a better win-experience for visitors at HC will attract more people into gambling at HC, which makes these two terms of particular interest for HC.

As part of the Master Thesis Marketing, a research is conducted to provide HC with insights about how to influence the win-expectation and win-experience of their visitors. This research investigates whether particular gambling events/conditions can predict the win-expectation and win-experience and whether they can affect the win-expectation and win-experience. This study also focuses on whether these situations have a different effect for the regulatory focus and self-construal of visitors.

The situations that are investigated are: a near-miss, personal attention, presence of other visitors, gain of another gambler, up-to-date information about prizes that are taken and prizes that can be won, a two-stage win, reading about other gamblers’ win-experiences, live narrowcasting of a jackpot win, touching the prize you can win, and playing with real money. The regulatory focus consists of the promotion focus that includes visitors that are risk-seeking and the prevention focus that includes visitors that are risk- averse, self-construal contains independent self-construal, visitors that prefer playing on their own, and the interdependent self-construal that includes visitors that prefer playing with others.

The investigation consisted of two parts: a survey administered to visitors of HC (N=1250) and an observed experiment at HC Groningen (N=90). The questionnaire focused on the win-expectation, win- experience, regulatory focus and self-construal for all the considered conditions, with the exception of playing with real money. The condition playing with real money is investigated with the observation experiment that exists of two conditions, the experiment session where visitors played with real money and the control session where visitors played with chips. The game subjects played the game ‘Casino War’ and were asked to fill in a questionnaire that focused on the win-expectation, win-experience, the regulatory focus, self-construal, the presence of others, gain of other visitors and questions related to the cover-up story.

Statistical analysis, including analysis of variance, is used to determine the effect size of each condition on both outcome variables (win-expectation and win-experience) and test our hypotheses. It is concluded that the situations: a near-miss, personal attention, presence of other visitors, experience a gain of another gambler, have the largest contribution to both the win-expectation and win-experience. Reading about other visitors’ win-experiences only has a large influence on the win-expectation. Overall the win-expectation is best influenced by all the events/conditions considering the obtained effect-sizes. The personality factors are not significantly affected by the considered situations. Visitors that are risk-seeking (promotion focus) have a higher win-expectation and win-experience compared to visitors that are risk-averse. Visitors that prefer to play alone (independent self-construal) have a slightly higher win-expectation compared to visitors that are risk-averse. Concerning playing with real money and playing with chips, participants that play with real money have a higher win-expectation after a gain and the lowest win-expectation after a loss. Participants that play with chips have a higher win-experience after a gain and the lowest win-experience after a loss.

Keywords: win-expectation, win-experience, regulatory focus, self-construal.

(5)

Preface ... 1

Summary ... 2

Table of contents ... 3

1. Introduction ... 4

2. Theory ... 9

2.1 Theoretical context ... 9

2.1.1 Win-expectation and win-experience ... 9

2.1.2 The four personality factors ... 10

2.1.3 Situations ... 13

2.2 Conceptual model ... 21

3. Method ... 22

3.1 Research type ... 22

3.2 Target population, sample and representativity ... 22

3.3 Participants ... 22

3.4 Measurement of variables ... 23

3.4 Procedure experiment ... 24

3.5 Statistical analysis ... 25

3.6 Validity and reliability of the research ... 25

4. Results ... 26

4.1 Win-expectation or win-experience? ... 26

4.1.1 Two separate outcome variables ... 26

4.1.2 Average score win-expectation and win-experience ... 26

4.1.3 Win-expectation better influenced than the win-experience ... 27

4.2 The situations with the largest influence on win-expectation and win-experience ... 27

4.2.1 Situations with a large influence on win-expectation and win-experience ... 27

4.3 Differences for the personality factors ... 30

4.3.1 Win-expectation and win-experience ... 30

4.3.2 Influenced personality factors ... 31

4.4 Playing with real money versus playing with chips ... 31

4.4.1 Experiment group and the control group ... 31

4.4.2 Playing with real money or playing with chips?... 31

4.4.3 Observations... 32

4.4.4 Difference between personality factors ... 33

5. Conclusions and recommendations ... 34

5.1 Conclusions ... 34

5.2 Recommendations ... 36

6. Limitations and implications for future research ... 38

(6)

References ... 39

Appendix……… 42

Appendix I: Online questionnaire ... 43

Appendix II: Questionnaire experiment ... 48

Appendix III: Overview of the items that represent one variable ... 50

Appendix IV: Factor analysis and cluster analysis ... 52

Appendix V: Frequencies of the demographic variables ... 54

Appendix VI: Analysis of variance for the demographic variables ... 55

Appendix VII: Analysis of variance ... 57

Appendix VIII: Analysis of variance, divided by each personality ... 59

Appendix IX: Frequencies of the demographic variables ... 62

Appendix X: Analysis of variance demographic variables ... 63

(7)

1. Introduction

Holland casino

Holland Casino (HC), also known as the National Foundation for the Exploitation of Casino Games, is the only licensee appointed by the Dutch government for offering casino games in the Netherlands. The license was issued as indefinite, but currently the license term is reconsidered. The license falls under the Dutch gambling policy that aspires the protection of the consumer, prevention of gambling addiction and the prevention of illegal and criminal gambling practices. HC is a foundation and is functioning as a normal enterprise with currently 14 establishments. As a state holding, HC is linked to the Dutch government to who they pay their entire net profit except for their equity. The minister of Finance acts as a ‘shareholder’ of HC and the minister of Justice acts as a licensing authority and is responsible for legal regulation of gambling. The Dutch government granted only one casino license in order to ensure a legal, reliable and monitorable provision.

Current situation of HC

Since 2012, HC is running at a financial loss. HC closed the year 2012 with a loss of €652.000 which adds up to a loss of €60 million (Annual Report, 2012). According to the Dutch Government, HC has to prepare itself for an eventual sale, because the Dutch government does not consider the secure exploitation of gambling as a state task anymore. Currently, HC is legally restraint by banks that give HC critical advice to solve their financial situation. By extension, HC sees opportunities for online gambling and expects to invest in this starting in the second half of 2014.

Table 1 shows the figures of HC (Annual report 2009-2012). According to HC, in the year 2012, 1,172,661 individuals on average visited 5 times one of the 14 casinos of HC and spent an average of 96 euros per visit (Annual report 2012).

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Visitors 6.917 thousand 6.218 thousand 1.148 thousand 1.184 thousand 1.173 thousand Visitor experience

(% of the best holding)

- - 66% 66% 69%

Enterprise result €48,5 million €23,6 million €10,2 million €11,5 million €1,4 million Table 1: Figures of HC (Annual report HC, 2009-2012)

In 2013, HC changed their strategy and shifted their focus on recovering their number of annual visitors whilst retaining their high-frequency visitors, as HC is face by a reclining number of high-frequency visitors. The dropping number of high-frequency visitors is important for HC as they contribute most to the company. Why is their high-frequency visitor base slinking fast and makes way to a large number of incidental visitors who visit HC once? Are these visitors not satisfied anymore? Do the expectations of this group of visitors not live up to their experiences? What influences these expectations and experiences?

(8)

Research direction

At HC, the visitor is the center of attention. That is why HC aims to be the best host their visitors can get, using a targeted approach and a welcoming attitude to enlarge their visitors’ loyalty. Concerning HC’s visitors, there is still very much unclear what their win-expectation and win-experience is. According to HC, the chance for a repeat visit of their visitors increases when visitors have a successful visit. This is caused by winning or the experience of winning and when the other part of the visitors, who do not participate in playing, have a feeling of an exciting night out. However, the win-expectation and win-experience of the HC customers is not easily understood.

Motives

In science, no previous research exists that investigates how the win-experience and win-expectation of visitors can be influenced. Only Ladouceur et al. (2003) investigates the effects of video lottery players’

expectancies of winning on physiological and subjective arousal. The conclusions Ladouceur et al. (2003) discovered is that regardless of the level of risk-taking, expectancy of winning is a cognitive factor influencing levels of arousal. When playing for fun, gambling becomes significantly less stimulating than when playing for money.

Building on these findings, it is investigated whether win-expectation and win-experience are really two different concepts or if they influence each other and it is investigated how these two concepts can be influenced by specific conditions that occur in a casino environment.

According to playing for fun and playing for money, this research focuses on playing with money and playing with chips, both valuable. In research never before a research is carried out to determine the differences in win-expectation and win-experience when visitors play with real money or when visitors play with chips.

Previous research of Higgins (1998) that explained the regulatory focus, and Agrawal and Maheswaren (2005) and Singelis (1994) that explained self-construal, is used to divide the visitors of HC in segments and determine whether different effects on the win-expectation and win-experience are visible for the personality factors of a personality segment.

Situations

In trying to understand the win-expectation and win-experience, several situations are set up to find out how and to what extent they influence the win-expectation and win-experience of HC’s visitors. These situations are based on existing research combined with cases HC wanted to investigate. The different situations are presented in the conceptual model (figure 1, p. 21).

Personalities

HC’s visitors are divided into two personality segments (regulatory focus and self-construal) that both consist of two personality factors, to determine if the effect of each conditions on the win-expectation and win- experience show significant differences for the factors in a personality segments. These four personality factors were already formed in several researches HC has done. In this research, psychological literature applied to HC’s case showed that the regulatory focus that consists of promotion focus and prevention focus,

(9)

and self-construal, that consists of independent- and interdependent self-construal, are the best suited theories to construct the personality factors, where each personality factor has its own characteristics.

Research objective

The objective of this research is to provide HC with clear insights about how they could influence the win-expectation and win-experience of their visitors by focusing on certain situations that take place on the casino floor. This is done by investigating the effect of the several situations or gambling contexts on the win- expectation and win-experience and analyzing whether these situations show different effects on the win- expectation and win-experience in the four personality categories.

Research problem

The research problem HC is faced with is the limited knowledge about the win-expectation and win- experience of their visitors. HC likes to have a better comprehension of these expectations and experiences of their visitors as to positively influence them.

Research question

The research question addressed here is: How can Holland Casino influence the win-expectation and win-experience of their visitors?

Sub questions

To answer the main research question, the following sub questions are formulated:

1. Using the given situations, can Holland Casino better influence the win-expectation or the win- experience?

2. Which situations have the largest contribution to win-expectation and/or win-experience?

3. Which personality factors are more susceptible to be influenced and by which situations?

4. Are there differences for the win-expectation and win-experience between playing with money and playing with chips?

Scope of the research

The difference between the type of visitor (low-frequency- (1-4 visits per year), moderate-frequency- (4-20 visits per year) and high-frequency visitors (>20 visits per year)) is not included in this research, because not for all the categories significant effects are found. No specific pattern could be discovered between the different effects of the personality factors for low-frequency visitors and high-frequency visitors.

Combining the three categories of types of visitor into two categories (low-frequency visitors (1-12 visits per year) and high-frequency visitors (>12 visits per year)), showed significant results for both categories. It shows new insights into the effect between the factors of a personality segment. However, before implying the results in this research, they have to be tested in future research.

(10)

Disposition of the research report

This research exists of six chapters. In the first chapter (introduction) the background of the research is presented followed by the objective of the research, the research problem and research question. Chapter two (theory) describes the theoretical context of the research by providing an overview of relevant existing scientific theories and graphically presents the conceptual model. Chapter three (methods) the research approach is described step by step. Chapter 4 (results) presents all the relevant outcomes from analysis.

Chapter 5 (conclusions and recommendations) provides answers to the research question using the results of the previous chapter. Chapter 6 (limitations and future implications) describes the limitations of the research using the results of the previous chapter and point out ideas for specific future research.

(11)

2. Theory

2.1 Theoretical context

In this subchapter, the main relevant items of the research will be defined and described. These are the win-expectation and win-experience (outcome variables) (3.1), the situations (predictor variables) (3.2) and the four personality factors (moderator variables) (3.3).

2.1.1 Win-expectation and win-experience

As mentioned before, within HC the usage and the definitions of win-expectation and win-experience are inconsistent. In previous research, there is no distinction between these two concepts and the win- experience and win-expectation are treated as a single entity. According to one of HC’s employees, win- experience/expectation is: ‘the feeling you that you have a chance to win’. However, Ladouceur et al. (2003) defines win-expectation as: ‘the extent a person acts or beliefs he/she could win money in a gamble’. To avoid confusion, both definitions will be clearly explained to find out what both outcome variables include.

Win-expectation

We adopted the definition of “win-expectation as used by of Ladouceur et al. (2003) is adopted, because it fits the meaning of the independent words win and expectation. Win is defined as: ‘to achieve first position and/or get a prize in a competition, election, fight etc.¹’ and expectation is defined as: ‘the feeling of expecting something to happen²’.

However, win-expectation has to be measurable to use it as an outcome variable. Therefore the definition of Ladouceur et al. (2003) is transformed to the following question that is asked to HC’s visitors:

‘What is the chance you will win the next gamble?’

Win-experience

Having defined win-expectation, the definition of “win-experience” has to be determined. The word experience is defined as: ‘something that happens to you that affects how you feel³’. Win-experience is about what the visitor experiences, encounters and feels during winning. This definition will be used in this research, what also entails that win-expectation and win-experience are two different variables.

To make the definition of win-experience measurable as an outcome variable, this definition will be transformed to the following question that is asked to HC’s visitors:

‘How much do you like playing this gamble?’

1 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/win_1?q=win

2 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/expectation?q=expectation

3 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/experience_1?q=experience

(12)

2.1.2 The four personality factors

Subsequently we need to have a closer look at the four personality factors. Previous research of HC suggested two personality segments that both consists of two personality factors. One segment is the regulatory focus, that consists of the promotion- and prevention focus. The other segment is self-construal, that consists of the independent- and interdependent self-construal. In this research, it is investigated if the effect of each situation on the win-expectation and win-experience is significantly different for the personality factors of the regulatory focus and self-construal. Therefore the four personality factors are defined below.

Regulatory focus

Throughout the history of psychology the hedonic principle that individuals approach pleasure and avoid pain has been the basic motivational principle for people’s actions. A loss feels more intense than a gain.

Kahneman and Tversky (1979) explain this with prospect theory. According to them almost every individual is loss averse, because individuals strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains. In general individuals are risk averse towards gains and risk seeking toward losses.

The regulatory focus theory is a motivation theory by Higgins (1998) based on the self-regulation principle. This regulatory focus goes is an addition to the hedonistic principle, because this principle was not descriptive enough (Higgins, 1997). The regulatory focus approaches pleasure and pain differently (Higgins, 1998; Liberman et al., 1999; and Freitas et al., 2002). The regulatory focus theory distinguishes between the presence or absence of positive outcomes (promotion focus) and the presence or absence of negative outcomes (prevention focus). Both focuses entail more than just risk-seeking/risk-aversion and gain-seeking/loss- aversion, but in this research we ignore these complications and treat the focuses as just risk-seeking (promotion focus) and risk-averse (prevention focus). According to Crowe and Higgins (1997) individuals in both groups will have different strategic tendencies. However, it is also possible that an individual holds both types of regulatory focus (Higgins, 1998) and that the regulatory focus of a person can vary between situations (Idson et al., 1998).

The type of regulatory focus an individual possesses can affect the type of emotion people experience when completing a task or not completing a task (Higgins, 1998; Loewenstein et al., 2003), like winning or not winning a gamble. When individuals are more satisfied with the situation, they evaluate it more favorably (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., 2003). This could affect the expectation of completing the next task. Applying this evidence to HC’s visitors, an assumption can be made that the regulatory focus has a moderate influence on the relationship between the situations and the win-expectation and win-experience.

We now need apply the regulatory focus theory to our research, it is important to explain what includes the promotion focus and what includes the prevention focus.

 Promotion focus

Characteristics of individuals with a promotion focus

Individuals with a promotion focus have the strategy to make progress by achieving goals, aspirations and promote growth and accomplishments (Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998). Targets are therefore

(13)

seen as opportunities to obtain optimal results (Freitas et al., 2002). A goal is seen as an option out of many possibilities that can be accomplished: for them especially hope and ambitions will function as to pick the maximum achievable target (Brendl and Higgins, 1996). According to Liberman et al. (1999) a promotion focus is associated with openness to change. According to Idson et al. (1998), a promotion focus is the successes and failures that will be experienced as the presence of positive outcomes (gains) and the absence of positive outcomes (no gains). Promotion success (gain) evokes emotions that can be related to cheerfulness, while promotion failure (no gain) evokes emotions that are related to depression (Idson et al., 1998). It can be stated that visitors with a promotion focus become happy due to success and become depressed due to failure.

Visitors with a promotion focus

Having described what a promotion focus includes, it is important to look at the visitors of HC that have this promotion focus: how will a person with a promotion focus behave and what goals does an individual with a promotion focus aspire. Based on previous studies (Idson et al., 1998), visitors with a promotion focus are focused on positive outcomes during the game and they like to accomplish their goals. In many cases, the goals of casino visitors are related to winning money. According to Liberman et al. (1999), individuals with a promotion focus are risk-seeking. They have a more open attitude towards change than individuals with a prevention focus. In general visitors with a promotion focus at HC are more likely to take risks to accomplish their goals. HC has to ensure that the promotion focus targeted on success will be activated when possible to obtain an optimal win-expectation and win-experience for their visitors. It trivially follows that visitors with a promotion focus who achieve success and are stimulated have a more positive win- experience when playing gaming bets and are more likely to believe they will win money in betting.

 Prevention focus

Characteristics of individuals with a prevention focus

The prevention focus concerns safety, responsibility and obligations. This focus regulates the absence and presence of negative outcomes (Higgins, 1998). The goals for individuals with a prevention focus are tasks and obligations or even promises. These people are rational and careful and adopt a precautionary strategy that avoids mismatches to achieve the desired end-stage (Higgins, 1998; Crowe and Higgins, 1997).

Individuals with a prevention focus will be more compelled to stay with the original, present position as long as it is satisfactory (Liberman, 1999). According to Freitas et al. (2002), individuals with a prevention focus feel relieved when they can distance themselves of a risky activity focusing on something else. This again shows clearly that individuals with a prevention focus see the achieving of an adopted goal as a necessity. This is emphasized by Brendl and Higgins (1996). They argue that the obligations of a prevention focus function as minimum goals. Success and failure is perceived as the absence of negative outcomes (no failures) and the presence of negative outcomes (failures) (Idson et al., 1998).

Visitors with a prevention focus

By clearly understanding what the prevention focus exactly means, we can have a look at visitors of HC with a prevention focus. Freitas et al. (2002) argue that individuals more likely choose to start with prevention-focused tasks than promotion-focused tasks. The prevention focus is therefore associated with a preference for stability. At HC, there are visitors who choose to ‘play safe’ and take fewer risks. This group of

(14)

visitors can be categorized under the prevention focus. Visitors with a prevention focus at HC probably experience more ‘pain’ when they do not win compared to visitors with a promotion focus. Idson et al., (1998) declare that when visitors with a prevention focus obtain success (don’t lose) evoked that are related to a peaceful calm, while obtaining a failure (lose) will evoke emotions that are related to anxiety.

Based on the aforementioned, it can be assumed that visitors with a promotion focus will have a higher win-expectation and win-experience for each situation compared to visitors with a prevention focus.

Gamblers with a promotion focus accept a challenge even when they lose. Visitors with a prevention focus will experience win-experience and expectation in a different way than people with a promotion focus. People with a prevention focus are slightly more skeptical, because they want to ‘protect’ themselves.

Self-construal

Self-construal refers to how a person thinks about himself in relation to others (Walker, 2009).

Agrawal and Maheswaren (2005) argue that self-construal reflects the extent to which individuals themselves as an individualized unit in relation to others. Markus and Kitayama (1991) conceptualize self-construal as a constellation of thoughts, feelings and actions about one’s relationship to others and identify themselves as a separate entity to others. The types of self-construal someone has, affects their cognitions (ideas, beliefs), emotions and motivations (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandias, 1995). A distinction can be made between independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal.

Looking at self-construal within HC, an example for a person with an independent self-construal is someone who likes to play for his/her very own personal gain. This type of visitor is likely to isolate him/herself from the group and get absorbed into the game. Even when a person with an individual self- construal will enter HC with a group, this person will probably have little regard for the rest of the group. A person with an interdependent self-construal can be characterized as a group animal. This person likes to experience everything together with others. In most cases, this type of people will visit HC in company of their friends.

 Independent self-construal

Characteristics of individuals with an independent self-construal

Singelis (1994) defines independent self-construal as a stable and detached from social context self- image of an individual. Agrawal and Maeswaren (2005) argue that people with an independent self-construal see themselves as unique and they are not reluctant to stand out from other members of the group. The goals of a person with an independent self-construal include maintaining their independence, rather than being independent (Agrawal and Maheswaren, 2005). There are several elements that make an independent self- construal: (1) internal skills, thoughts and feelings, (2) being unique and expressing your ’self’, (3) realizing internal attributes and promoting one’s own goals, (4) being direct in communication (Singelis, 1994).

(15)

Visitors with an independent self-construal

At HC, visitors with an independent self-construal will visit the casino out of own reasons and beliefs, not because of social pressure or to be part of a group. These visitors like to be independent and like to differentiate, which most likely will be reflected in their way of playing. Logically, they will rather choose to play individually.

 Interdependent self-construal

Characteristics of individuals with an interdependent self-construal

Singelis (1994) defines an interdependent self-construal as a flexible, variable ‘self’. According to him, a person with an interdependent self-construal emphasizes: (1) external, publicly characteristics like statuses, roles and relationships, (2) wants to belong to a group and fit into a group, (3) occupies one’s own place and participate in appropriate situations and (4) is indirect in communication. People with an interdependent self- construal see themselves as part of the group and define themselves in relation to other group members (Agrawal and Maheswaren, 2005). For a person with an interdependent self-construal it feels like he/she is intertwined with the group (Singelis, 1994). The principle goal of the interdependent self is to remain connected with the others and preserve harmony (Markus and Kitayama, 1991, 1994).

Visitors with an interdependent self-construal

Understanding what the interdependent self-construal includes, it is important to look at this group of people within HC. Given the fact that visitors with an interdependent self-construal feel better participating in a group, they will compare themselves with other visitors during the game. This could have a negative impact on the win-expectation. When individuals see other group members win, they may think they have a smaller chance to win. This could also lead to a negative relation between interdependent self-construal and win- experience. However, individuals do not regard other’s profits as negative, because they feel connected to the group.

Based on aforementioned, it is assumed that both visitors with an independent self-construal and visitors with an interdependent self-construal have a positive win-expectation and win-experience. Comparing both type of visitors, no large differences in effect are assumed for both outcome variables (win-expectation and win-experience). Visitors who prefer to play individually are very independent and feel like they can take on anyone and any situation. According to the moderating influence of the interdependent self-construal on the relationship between the situations and the win-expectation and win-experience, this moderate influence can range from mildy positive to mildy negative, because it depends on experience and expectation of the other group members. When having a positive experience and expectation, a visitor with an interdependent self-construal will have his or her win-expectation and win-experience reinforced.

2.1.3 Situations

We now turn to the situations we have considered. The situations are based on cases of particular interest to HC for which HC needs a more accurate description of the win-expectation or the win-experience

(16)

and to find out which situation contributes most to win-expectation and win-experience. Therefore the situations, which are used as a predictor variable in this research, are elucidated out below.

To find out what the size of influence of each situation on the win-expectation and win-experience is and if this influence is different for the personality factors in the regulatory focus and self-construal, several hypotheses are constructed.

When it is expected that the personality factors do not show a specific personality factor effect in the influence of a specific situation on the win-expectation or win-experience, only the general effect of the situation on the win-experience and/or win-expectation is mentioned. In the analysis, all the effects are tested individually.

A near-miss

According to Reid (1986) and Griffiths (1989), a near-miss is a special kind of failure to reach a goal, one that comes close to being successful. It is a motivating factor in gambling where a player perceives that they just missed out on a winning event. According to Harrigan (2008), a near-miss is a failure that was close to a win. When a visitor psychologically gets stimulated when he/she almost wins, he/she will get stimulated to continue playing. This is called the psychobiology of the near-miss. An example of near-miss is when a visitor gets two of the three pictures right on a slot machine or if a visitor found out another visitor won the jackpot on the same slot machine a few seconds before or when a visitor chooses the number next to the right one in Roulette. According to Côté and colleagues (2003), the win-expectation of a visitor is positively influenced when a visitor experiences a near-miss. This could result in the visitor continuing to play and increasing his/her bet. The difference between a near-miss and a near-win is considered very small. So a near- miss is perceived as it could also have been a win instead. The influence of a near-miss on the win-experience is also positive. De Vries (2012) found evidence that a visitor perceives a near-miss more like a gain instead of an actual loss. Reid (1986) and Rockloff et al. (2012) found evidence that a near-miss creates the same or even more stimulation, excitement and commitment as when the visitor actually wins. According to Skinner (1953), a near-miss is perceived as positive feedback in context of a learning-effect. Therefore, it is predicted that experiencing a near-miss has a large positive influence on the win-expectation and win-experience of visitors.

A different effect for the two personality factors of the regulatory focus is expected. Visitors with a prevention focus will experience a lower win-expectation and win-experience compared to visitors with a promotion focus. Visitors with a prevention focus experience a near-miss as a loss, while visitors with a promotion focus experience a near-miss as a win. It is expected that visitors with an interdependent self- construal have the same win-expectation and win-experience as visitors with an interdependent self-construal when they experience a near-miss.

H1: A near-miss has a large positive influence on the win-expectation and win-experience.

H1a: Visitors with a prevention focus have a lower win-expectation when they almost win compared to visitors with a promotion focus.

(17)

Personal attention

The way winning will be experienced or witnessed can be connected to the personal treatment a visitor gets of HC’s employees. Prentice and King (2011) state that the way visitors are treated by casino employees is very important. Saxe and Weitz (1982) found evidence that behavior of customer-oriented employees increases long-term customer satisfaction. Would a visitor experience a gain differently when he/she got a lot of personal attention of a HC employee and how would this personal attention of an employee influence a visitor’s win-expectation? It is predicted that personal attention has a large positive influence on the win- expectation and win-experience.

According to Klebanow (2002), not every visitor of HC will appreciate this personal attention of employees. The effect of getting personal attention on visitors’ win-expectation and win-experience is different for the personality factors. Visitors with a promotion focus will have a higher win-expectation and win- experience than visitors with a prevention focus, because visitors with a prevention focus feel more pressured when they receive a lot of attention. This pressure is often perceived as negative. No differences in personality factors of self-construal are expected.

H2: Personal attention has a large positive influence on the win-expectation and win-experience.

H2a: Visitors with a prevention focus will have a lower win-expectation and win-experience compared to visitors with a promotion focus.

Presence of other visitors

Jellison and Riskind (1970), Rockloff and Dyer (2007) and Rockloff et al. (2012) found evidence that the presence of other visitors put pressure on a player to achieve a certain status and leads to a positive influence on the individual betting behavior. Martines et al. (2005) found evidence for negative social pressure. When other visitors play worse this will influence the visitor to play worse. Reversing this conclusion of Martines et al. (2005), an assumption is made that when other visitors play well, this will positively influence the visitor to play well. The Social Learning Theory of Bandura (1977) supports this assumption.

Bandura’s theory suggests that people learn new behaviors and increase the frequency of implementing this behavior when other people regard these behaviors beneficially. Geen (1991) found evidence that the presence of other people can create expectations for a negative evaluation of performance. Individuals can develop fear for public failure. However, this fear can inspire and can create higher effort and hence enhance their performance. This effect is also observable in gambling. For visitors the fear of being regarded as a loser is a motivation to win. This results in a positive win-expectation. When they accomplish a win, the experience is highly positive and feels as a relief and reward for their effort. Applying this to HC’s visitors, this theory provides the perspective that the presence of other visitors has a large positive influence on the win- expectation and on the win-experience.

It is expected that this effect will be influenced by the regulatory focus. Visitors with a promotion focus will have a lower win-experience compared to gamblers with a prevention focus, because gamblers that are risk-seeking get distracted when other visitors are around. Visitors with a prevention focus have a higher win- experience. When they lose, it is assumed they use the influence of other visitors as a mean, because they can blame the loss on these visitors. When a visitor with a prevention focus wins, it is expected, he or she felt that

(18)

the presence of others contributed to the accomplishment, which works out well. Visitors with an interdependent self-construal have a higher win-experience, because they like the attention and like to celebrate this with others.

H3: The presence of other visitors has a large positive influence on the win-expectation and the win-experience.

H3a: Visitors with a promotion focus have a lower win-experience compared to visitors with a prevention focus that experience presence of other visitors.

H3b: Visitors with an interdependent self-construal have a higher win-experience compared to visitors with an independent self-construal when other visitors are present.

Gain of another visitor

Pradeep (2010) states that observing someone else’s enjoyment to a particular product is the key for generating desire for that product. Mirror neurons activate the same area in the brain when a consumer sees someone experience or do something, as when the consumer is experiencing it him or herself. On slot machines, wins of other visitors are announced to nearby visitors by way of lights and bells. On table games, players that play together experience gains of other visitors through social interaction, instead of hearing lights and bells. It is expected that hearing or seeing another visitor wins have an influence on the gambling behavior of an individual visitor, because it generates perceptions about the frequency of wins and it energizes the competitive instinct of visitors. Therefore, the assumption can be made that visitors will be rather stimulated than annoyed when seeing someone else win a prize. Therefore, it is expected that seeing someone else win a prize have a large positive influence on the win-expectation and win-experience.

The win-expectation and win-experience for visitors with an interdependent self-construal is higher when they notice another visitor win compared to visitors with an independent self-construal. Interdependent self-construal visitors also enjoy seeing other visitors win; however this does not influence their win- expectation. Finally visitors with a prevention focus have a lower win-expectation compared to visitors with a promotion focus when they see another visitor wins, because they think no prize is left for them.

H4: Seeing another visitor win has a large positive influence on the win-expectation and win-experience of a visitor.

H4a: Visitors with a prevention focus that see another visitor win have a lower win-expectation compared to visitors with a promotion focus.

H4b: Visitors with an interdependent self-construal have a higher win-expectation and win-experience when they see another visitor win compared to visitors with an independent self-construal.

Up-to-date information about prizes that can be won and prizes that are taken

According to Kahneman and Tversky (1974), the excitement to win is overwhelming in the assessment by an individual of his/her probability to win a prize. This excitement to win a prize becomes larger with the increasing value of the prize and the quantity of prizes. So when visitors at HC receive up-to-date information about all the prizes they can win that day, their excitement to win grows, even when the chance to win is minimal. Therefore, when a visitor receives up-to-date information about all the prizes that can be won, his or

(19)

her win-expectation and win-experience is positively influenced. When a visitor receives up-to-date information about all the prizes that are already taken the opposite effect is expected. It is expected that experiencing a gain of another gambler yourself have a positive influence on you win-expectation and win- experience. However, only see prizes are taken, without experiencing a gambler won does not create expectation about wins themselves. Therefore, it is expected that when visitors receive up-to-date information about prizes that have been won, their win-expectations and win-experiences is slightly negatively influenced, because they regard it is hard to win and therefore are less motivated to win the next prize.

On the other hand, an assumption is made that too much information can lead to distraction and irritation. Rockloff and Dyer (2007) found evidence that the presence of environmental actors like other visitors, or sounds, pop up messages and video screens leads to distraction on the first hand, but eventually it leads to a better focus. By increasing their focus, a visitor produces a narrowing attention to the main task to regain control. This in turn leads to a better performance. Applying this to HC, the more information is presented to visitors, the better their focus, the better their performance.

An assumption is made that extra information can be either beneficial or detrimental win-expectation to visitors depending on their focus. Visitors with a prevention focus that see which prizes are already taken will have a lower win-expectation compared to visitors with a promotion focus. No differences are expected for the two personality factors of self-construal.

H51: Up-to-date information about prizes that can be won has a large positive influence on the win-expectation and win-experience.

H52: Up-to-date information about prizes that are taken has a small negative influence on the win-expectation and win- experience.

H5a: Visitors with a prevention focus that see which prizes are already been won have a lower win-expectation compared to visitors with a promotion focus.

A two stage win

At HC Scheveningen they already introduced a mystery stage where visitors who win a (jackpot) prize, have to play a second game at this mystery stage to determine their exact amount they would win. This mystery prize causes extra excitement and enjoyment for a visitor, which could lead to a large positive influence on visitors’ win-experience and win-expectation (Rockloff et al., 2012).

It is expected not every type of visitor will appreciate a two stage win. To what extent will this influence the win-expectation and win-experience of visitors? It is expected that visitors that like to take risks and get exited by new challenges, this two stage win moment has a positive influence on their win-experience.

However for the risk-averse people who are relieved the game is over and are ready to cash in, this second stage of the game come as a negative influence on their win-experience. Considering the win-experience of visitors, it is likely they will think it has become easier to win a prize because they expect to get a larger payout because of the increased attention for this new marketing action. Furthermore visitors witness more often other visitors win a prize, because a win gets double the amount of attention. This could positively stimulate a visitor to try to win a two-stage win himself. For visitors with an interdependent - and independent self- construal the effects on the win-expectation and win-experience are expected as equal.

(20)

H6: Winning a prize in two steps has a large positive influence on the win-expectation and win-experience of a visitor.

H6a: Visitors with a prevention focus will have a lower win-expectation when they win a prize in two steps compared to visitors with a promotion focus.

Reading other visitors’ win-experiences

Pradeep (2010) stated that observing someone else’s enjoyment form a product is crucial for enhancing their desire for that product. Lindstrom (2009) discovered that this effect does not only occur by observing someone else experiencing the benefits of a product, but also when that person thinks or reads about an action that involves someone else experiencing the product. Reading about other visitors’

experiences can also lead to feelings of jealousy, because for some visitors, reading about another visitors’

wins can feel unjust, as the reader did not win this prize, whereas he has surely put in the same amount of effort according to his own account. Applying this to HC, reading about another visitors’ win-experience or win-expectation could generate a desire to gamble for the reader. The question that arises is whether reading about other visitors’ win-experiences of win-expectations will positively influence the visitors’ own win- expectation and win-experience. It is expected that reading about other visitors’ win-experiences has a moderate influence on the win-expectation and win-experience of a gambler.

Again, it is expected this influence of reading about other visitors’ win-expectation and win-experience will vary between the two personality factors of both the regulatory focus and self-construal. Visitors with a promotion focus and interdependent self-construal that read about other visitors’ win-experiences are expected to have a more enhanced win-expectation compared to visitors that have a prevention focus and independent self-construal.

H7: Reading about other visitors’ win-experiences and win-expectations has a moderate positive influence on the win- expectation and win-experience.

H7a: Visitors with a promotion focus and visitors with an interdependent self-construal that read about other visitors’

win-experiences have a higher win-expectation compared to visitors that have a prevention focus and visitors with an independent self-construal.

Live narrowcasting of a jackpot win

According to Webster (2006), the jackpot is the largest prize to win in a gamble. McPherson (2007) defines a jackpot as ‘an accumulated amount that is contributed to, and available within, the prize pool.’

However there are different types of jackpots. At HC a distinction between, progressive, fixed and mystery jackpots is made. A progressive jackpot increases in value when visitors make additional bets. A fixed jackpot is a fixed prize amount derived from losses of other visitors. A mystery jackpot is an extra prize that occurs at random on one of the slot machines and it is independent of the throw or winning combination.

Research about the influence of jackpots on visitors is scares. Research of Kaplan (1978, 1988) found that in lotteries, which are similar to slot machines, a modest win has a higher influence on the win- expectation and win-experience of visitors than jackpots. However, this problem mostly applies to addicted gamblers. This research of Kaplan (1987, 1988) is based on lottery prizes and states that lottery prizes are

(21)

similar to jackpots on slot machines, because they share the feature of a large payout for comparatively small bets. According to Rockloff et al. (2012), the presence of a jackpot, rather than winning one stimulates gambling. Some researchers think large jackpots are of paramount influence to behavior. According to Custer and Milt (1985), there are two essential elements required to understand the influence of jackpots on gambling behavior; first, jackpots can influence the behavior of visitors because they provide a ‘potential’ for a large prize. Not many people will ever win a large jackpot, so the sole presence of a large jackpot induces the effect, even if the probability of winning it is negligible. Second, for the lucky visitors who win a jackpot, the win-experience can influence their next gambling behavior. According to Kahneman and Tversky (1974), a jackpot win creates a positive reference point for visitors. So, when visitors see or experience a jackpot win in HC, they perceive a higher win-expectation and win-experience at HC compared to other casinos.

Furthermore, Kahneman and Tversky (1979) found out that visitors become more risk-seeking when it comes to jackpots compared to smaller prizes, because they see the large jackpot prizes as an opportunity.

We can assume based on this that in the case of HC the appearance of jackpots or message that a jackpot has been hit has a significant moderate influence on the win-expectation and win-experience of visitors. Whether this influence is positive or negative depends on the personality segment the visitor falls into. Will the influence on the win-expectation and win-experience also be positive when a visitor sees or hears somebody else has won a jackpot? Will this make a difference when this jackpot is presented live using narrowcasting or when it is presented a few minutes later? Do visitors want to see or hear this? Do they like to know a jackpot is won when it happens in the establishment they visit or do they also like to know when the jackpot hits in another establishment of HC? These are all relevant questions that need to be considered.

This influence varies between the personality factors of the regulatory focus. Visitors with a prevention focus that see another visitor win the jackpot have a lower win-experience compared to visitors that have a promotion focus. Visitors with a prevention focus did not even think of winning the jackpot in the first place and hence their experience of observing someone else winning the jackpot is enhanced. Between the personality factors of the self-construal no differences are expected.

H8: Live narrowcasting of a jackpot win has a moderate positive influence on the win-expectation and win-experience.

H8a: Visitors with a prevention focus that see another visitor winning the jackpot have a lower win-expectation compared to visitors with a promotion focus.

Physically touch the prize that can we won

The endownment effect, as studies by Kahneman et al. (1991), explains that individuals want to put more effort into a specific object they own, than for an identical object they do not yet own. Applying this endowment effect to this particular case, physically touching the prizes that can be won creates a feeling of excitement and temporarily ownership. Visitors like to make an effort to win that prize in able to possess it. By physically showing the prize, visitors put a higher value on the prize/game. This will lead to a small positive effect on the win-expectation and win-experience of a visitor.

This effect is moderated. Visitors with a promotion focus and visitors with an independent self- construal that can physically touch the prize have a higher win-expectation than visitors that have a

(22)

prevention focus and visitors that have an interdependent self-construal. The effect on the win-experience is expected equal for the two personality factors of each segment.

H9: Physically touching the prizes that can be won, has a small positive influence on the win-expectation and win- experience.

H9a: Visitors with a promotion focus have a higher win-expectation when they can touch the prize they can win compared to visitors with a prevention focus.

H9b: Visitors with an independent self-construal have a higher win-expectation when they can touch the prize they can win compared to visitors with an interdependent self-construal.

Playing with real money

People have different motives to visit a casino. For some it is the experience of a wonderful and exciting evening and for others the motive is more focused on winning money. Many researchers verify that money is an important motivation to gamble (Lacoudeur et al., 2003; Conventry and Constable, 1999). As mentioned earlier, Ladouceur et al. (2003) found evidence that persons who gambled with money had a higher heart rate than the persons who did not play with money. What will be the difference for visitors between playing with money and playing with other modes of equivalent cash value? Does playing with real money or playing with for example chips result in different type of behavior?

A study of Prelec and Loewenstein (1998), Raghubir and Srivastava (2008), Soman (2001) and Mishra et al. (2006) found that paying in cash to buy a product induces more pain than paying by other modes of payment, like paying by credit card, even when the modes are normatively equivalent.

Based on this we expect in the case of gambling that playing with real money creates more intense feelings than playing with chips/tickets of equivalent cash value. Therefore when a visitor wins when playing with real cash instead of playing with chips, a more positive feeling will be experienced. The other way around, when a visitor loses when playing with money instead of playing with chips, a more negative feeling will be experienced.

The win-expectation can be influenced by a previous loss or win. Applying the evidence found by the study of Prelec and Loewenstein (1998), Raghubir and Srivastava (2008), Soman (2001) and Mishra et al.

(2006), a previous loss when playing with money instead of playing with chips will have a negative influence on the win-expectation. On the other hand, a previous win when playing with money instead of playing with chips will have a positive influence on the win-expectation.

It is expected that visitors with a prevention focus have a higher win-expectation and win-experience when they play with real money, because they are more conscious about the money they put at stake compared to visitors with a promotion focus. For the visitors with a prevention focus, money has a more realistic value.

For the two factors of self-construal no differences are expected.

H10: Winning when playing with real money leads to a more positive influence on win-expectation and win-experience than winning when playing with equivalently valuable chips.

H10a: Visitors with a prevention focus have a higher win-expectation and win-experience when they play with real money compared to visitors with a promotion focus.

(23)

2.2 Conceptual model

Figure 1: Conceptual model

Figure 1 shows the conceptual model that forms the core of this research, which is the relation of the situations (predictor variables) on win-expectation and win-experience (dependent variables), moderated by the four personality factors (moderator variables).

(24)

3. Method

To display the effect of the situations on the win-experience and win-expectation and determine whether this effect varies between the four personality factors of visitors, two studies are conducted. The first study consists of a questionnaire measuring the effect on the win-expectation and experience of all the situations, bar the situation of playing with real money. This situation is measured in the second study that consists of an observation experiment.

3.1 Research type

Both studies are quantitative and empirical. The study is empirical because the research question is answered by data collected in a questionnaire and an experiment directed at representative sample of HC Groningen visitors. To test the hypotheses and find out if there are causal and quantitative relations between the considered variables, a statistical analysis program (SPSS) is used to analyze the gathered numerical data.

3.2 Target population, sample and representativity

The target population of this research is visitors and the accessible population is the visitors of HC.

The sample of study 1 consists of real visitors of all the 14 establishments of HC’s establishments. These 5000 respondents were randomly selected. This sample is representative of the entire accessible population. The sample of study 2 consists of visitors of HC Groningen and students of the University of Groningen, where a part of the students of the University of Groningen are also visitors of HC (35 percent). Yet for the aim of the experiment, this sample is representative.

3.3 Participants Study 1

For study 1, collaboration took place with MarketResponse, a research consultancy agency in the Netherlands. Together with MarketResponse an online questionnaire was developed and sent to 5.000 randomly selected visitors of HC. The response rate was 18,5 percent (N=920). During the recruitment of participants for the experiment, another 350 visitors filled in the same questionnaire, but then a hardcopy version. From these 350 respondents, 20 respondents forgot to fill in 1 or more questions or statements. The respondents that did not fill in all the listed questions are removed from the dataset. In total 1250 visitors of HC filled in the questionnaire.

Within the sample, gender is balanced, but for age and game expertise younger and less game-skilled subjects are over represented compared to a normal distribution (Appendix V). However, analyzes of variance (ANOVA) showed that age, gender and game expertise of the participants do not have an influence on the win- expectation and win-experience (Appendix VI). Therefore this unequal distribution of age and game-expertise can be neglected. Also it is assumed that within the total population of HC visitors, these demographics are balanced.

The personality segments (regulatory focus and self-construal) do have an influence on the win- expectation and win-experience. Within the sample, the personality factors of the regulatory focus are equally distributed and the factors of self-construal are not equally distributed. Analyzes of variance only showed a

(25)

significant effect for the factors of the regulatory focus on the win-expectation and win-experience (Appendix VI). This means that visitors with a promotion focus have a difference win-expectation and win-experience compared to visitors with a prevention focus.

Study 2

Several random selected visitors of HC and students of the University of Groningen were approached and, following an explanation of the cover up story, were asked whether they would like to participate in the observation experiment. 60 visitors and 40 students agreed and signed a consent form (N=100). The participants were told they had to evaluate the game Casino War. This was used as a cover up story for the actual observation experiment. All selected participants were randomly assigned to either the experiment or control sessions. A final group of 57 participants for the experiment session (playing with real money) and 43 participants for the control session (playing with chips of equivalent cash value) participated in the study. For the experiment session, 8 respondents forgot respond to a least one question and 2 respondents did refused to fill in at least part of the questionnaire.

Within each session for both conditions the categories of gender and age are not equally balanced among the participants (Appendix IX). However analysis shows the imbalance does not have an influence on any of the outcome variables (win-experience and win-expectation) in this research (Appendix X).

Within each session for both experiment and control the personality factors are equally distributed.

Analysis of variance showed no significant effect of both personality segments on win-expectation and win- experience (Appendix X).

3.4 Measurement of variables

For study 1 a 102 item questionnaire and for study 2 a 46 item questionnaire is used to collect the data and determine dependence of the situations, personality factors, type of visitor on the win-expectation and win-experience of participants. For determining the influence of the situations on the win-expectation and win-experience, questions and statements are used that are not directly derived from previous research.

The effect of the situations on the win-expectation and win-experience is measured with two types of questions. For each situation a categorical question is asked about whether a participant experienced a specific situation (yes or no). The mean for the win-expectation and win-experience of the group that experienced that specific situations are compared with the means for the win-expectation and win-experience of the group that did not experience that specific situation. Next to these categorical questions, the statements, questions and proverbs were scored on a seven-point Likert scale (1 totally disagree - 7 totally agree). The questions and statements that belong to one variable are combined when the α was >0.70. Cronbach alpha (α) measures scale reliability. Appendix III shows which items belong to a specific variable.

For determining the impact of the personality factors on the outcome variables, the RFQ framework of Van Stekelenburg (2006) is used. Van Stekelenburg uses proverbs to determine if a respondent has a promotion focus or a prevention focus. To stay consistent, we also used this framework to determine both personality factors of self-construal for each participant. Based on the characteristics of both personality factors, 7 proverbs are chosen that match these characteristics. For each personality factor the 7 proverbs are tested beforehand and showed a good correlation for determining the personality factor of a given subject. An

(26)

explanatory factor analysis is used for identifying clusters of variables for the regulatory focus (KMO = 0,82, p

<0,001) and the self-construal (KMO = 0,72, p<0,001). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures the sampling adequacy and presents the ratio of the squared correlation between variables to the squared partial correlation between variables. A KMO > 0.70 shows the variables are highly correlated. For both personality segments the outcome of two factors was determined preliminary. Appendix IV shows the factors and which proverbs are used for creating the promotion focus (α=0,78), prevention focus (α=0,75), independent self- construal (no α, because this factor consist of one proverb) and interdependent self-construal (α=0,85). After the factor analysis, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed for the regulatory focus and self-construal to divide the respondents into one of the personality factors of each personality segment.

3.4 Procedure experiment

For the observation experiment, specific testing dates were arranged with each participant. Each participant participated in either the experiment session (playing with real money), or the control session (playing with valuable chips). Both sessions were held in the same casino environment, HC Groningen, but on different days. This prevented participants from noticing differences between the experimental and control sessions. All the participants were seated at the Casino War table and participated in the game with their own money (€ 10,-), complemented with a monetary reward (€ 10,-) for their participation, provided by HC. The participants of the experiment session played with coins of € 1,- and € 2,- and the participants of the control session played with chips with a value of €1,- and € 2,-. In each round, a maximum number of 7 participants could participate in the experiment that consisted of ten rounds.

A croupier explained the game to every participant. Several dummy rounds were played to get each participant acquainted with the rules. This reduced inequality of variance because of a Learning Effect (Andrade & Iyer, 2009). At the end, each participant was asked to fill in a questionnaire.

Casino War

The game that is played is Casino War. It is an exiting new card game with a highly competitive element, where the player competes with the bank. At the start of each round the croupier administers each player a closed card, including the bank. Before revealing the banks card, each player places a bet simultaneously without knowing their card or after they see the cards of other players. In this experiment the minimum bet is €1,- and the maximum bet is €2,-. In this game, 2 is the lowest card and ace is the highest card. The person with the highest card wins the game. In a case of a draw, player is ‘at war’ with the bank. In this case the player has two options: (1) surrender (2) go to war. In case the first option is chosen, the participant receives 1.5 times his or her own stake. In case the second option is chosen, the player and the bank have to double the bet the player has made at the start of the round. At the same time more than one player can go ‘at war’. The croupier draws a new card for the player and the bank when the player decides to go into war. On top of this players can, at the start of each round, place a bet on a draw, which is called a Tie. This can be done simultaneously with a normal bet. When the player and the bank have the same card, the player receives 10 times the amount he or she placed as a bet. This is the highest payout possible in one round of Casino War.