“Return-to-player” information is used in several jurisdictions to display the long-run cost of gambling, but previous evidence suggests that these messages are frequently misunderstood by gamblers. Two ways of improving the communication of return-to-player information have been suggested: switching to an equivalent “house-edge” format, or via the use of a “volatility warning,” clarifying that the information applies only in the statistical long run. In this study, Australian participants (N = 603) were presented with either a standard return-to-player message, the same message supplemented with a volatility warning, or a house-edge message. The return-to-player plus volatility warning message was understood correctly more frequently than the return-to-player message, but the house-edge message was understood best of all. Participants perceived the lowest chance of winning in the return-to-player plus volatility warning condition. These findings contribute data on the relative merits of two proposed approaches in the design of improved gambling information.
