search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
and focus groups, points to the same conclusion: gameplay is much more habitual than discovery-led. For the majority of returning sessions, the player is trying to complete a task. Tey want to get to a market, place a bet or play a game they already know. Tey are not necessarily in an exploratory mindset.


Te behavioural science is clear on this. Once a behaviour becomes habitual, motivation and deliberation largely drop out because it becomes routine. So, if someone is logging in every Tuesday evening to play the same game, surfacing recommendations at that moment may be working against their psychology rather than with it.


Tat doesn’t mean personalisation has no role, but it does mean its value is concentrated at very specific lifecycle moments. Onboarding is one. Reactivation is another. New product launches can also be relevant. But applying hyper-personalised experiences as a persistent layer across every session, regardless of context, is where the industry often gets it wrong.


every time they visit, or navigation shifts session to session, those habitual paths are broken.


Te safest model is a static structure with personalised content inside it. So, a “recommended for you” component can exist in a fixed place, while the titles within it change. Tat works. But when the architecture itself starts moving around, that’s when personalisation becomes disruptive.


Tere’s a good anecdote from Apple when it introduced shuffle on the iPod. Te system was genuinely random, but users complained it didn’t feel random because hearing the same artist twice in a row felt wrong. Apple had to make shuffle less random so it felt more random. It’s a useful reminder that algorithmic logic and human perception are not the same thing. Personalisation can be technically correct and still feel jarring in practice.


Discovery often happens off-platform rather than on it. If that’s the case, are operators over-investing in on-site personalisation at the


the data foundation is often much weaker than people assume.


Add legacy technology stacks that were never designed for real- time activation, and it becomes clear that the infrastructure challenge is just as important as the data challenge. Building a


genuinely complete picture of player intent is extremely difficult in an industry where behaviour is fragmented by design.


At what point does personalisation start getting in the user’s way? What does over-personalisation look like in a live casino or sportsbook environment?


It starts getting in the way when it interrupts the journey instead of supporting it. A user in an in-play sportsbook environment or a live casino context is usually high-intent and low-tolerance for friction. If they have to navigate past recommendations, changing content hierarchies or shifting layouts just to get to a known destination, you’ve made the product worse in the name of relevance.


Tere’s a core UX concept called wayfinding, which is about helping people orient themselves and move confidently through an interface. Users rely on familiar landmarks and patterns. If a lobby is reordered


60


FRASER DUNK CEO, Jurnii


expense of fixing core UX fundamentals?


In many cases, yes. Tis is not unique to gaming, of course. Across digital industries, a lot of purchase decisions and discovery moments happen before the user ever arrives on-platform. Tat comes through peers, affiliates, search, social, influencers and other external channels.


In iGaming, that pattern is particularly strong. A lot of site traffic arrives with intent already formed. Te player has already seen the game, the market or the brand somewhere else, and by the time they land on site they already know broadly what they want to do - which creates an attribution problem. On-site recommendation engines can claim credit for engagement that may have happened regardless, simply because the content was surfaced at the point of visit. Tat can inflate the apparent


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220  |  Page 221  |  Page 222  |  Page 223  |  Page 224  |  Page 225  |  Page 226  |  Page 227  |  Page 228  |  Page 229  |  Page 230  |  Page 231  |  Page 232  |  Page 233  |  Page 234  |  Page 235  |  Page 236