Upcoming IP Investor Dialogues: Spirax Sarco, FAST, COST, CPRT, POOL, SNOW, DDOG - Register your interest at help@inpractise.com 

Anonymous

Former VP at Parx Casino and Head of Business Development at FanDuel

FanDuel, Parx Casino & US Online Sports and Casino

Former Director at Penn National Gaming & Director of New Markets at FanDuel

Evolution Gaming, Kambi, & US Gaming Regulation

Former Director, US at Kambi 

Kambi & US Sports Betting

{audio:0:00:01} Mohit, a pleasure to have you with us today. Can we start by laying out the core elements of a technology stack for gaming operators?

{audio:0:00:12} It varies, depending on what organization you are in, but the majority of stuff is around player management, which is one of the key areas, the actual sportsbook engine itself and the RGS platform or the remote gaming server platform. Other areas will be the feeds integration and things around liability management. Of course, there is a frontend, as well. The frontend is the shop window for all the bookmakers. It varies from operator to operator, but the majority of people have those sort of core ingredients, around those sort of areas of the business, for their core online platform.

{audio:0:00:56} How do you look at that? Do you see them each as an individual component, or do you look at it as a frontend and a backend?

{audio:0:01:04} It’s a bit modular. You can call it frontend and backend; a lot of people do see it that way. The frontend, the shop window is basically how it all looks and feels. The backend is where all the logic is done. That’s where all the heavy lifting is, all the integrations to various third-party feeds; your pricing models, your actual RGS goes into it, your gaming engine. All that information is sitting in the backend but the frontend is, as I said, very much a shop window. Most operators do it different ways. You can have it modular, so you just bolt things on. Or you can have it in one big platform, if you wish to.

{audio:0:01:52} Because of scalability and performance, you need to make sure that your platform is robust enough to allow for you to tinker with small parts of that platform itself.

{audio:0:02:04} What parts of the stack do you think are considered crucial?

{audio:0:02:10} I’d say all of it, to be honest. There’s not one area that shouldn’t be deemed to be important. Of course, it depends on who you are. For most parts of the business, it’s the sexy stuff, which is the frontend. No one really cared about the backend. But the backend is where there are the brains behind everything that you’re doing. So you need to make sure that that is performing and resilient enough that you can then provide the frontend, the compute, for it to do the sexy stuff.

{audio:0:02:42} But does the operator look at any part of the stack where they want to own it or have it in-house?

{audio:0:02:49} Differentiation is the main thing. The frontend is always seen to be the differentiation. Lots of the backends are very similar, all the API and all the integrations to the third-party feeds are very similar. A lot of the gaming companies or operators, pretty much, have similar looking backends, but the frontend is where you see differentiation between yourselves and other providers. On top of that, you’ve got the bonus side of things, your marketing side of things, which is very important. That’s another element which is deemed to be quite a differentiator between operators, as well.

{audio:0:03:24} Have you seen any changes or trends in outsourcing, versus insourcing of different parts of the stack, over the last decade or so?

{audio:0:03:33} When I first started, many years ago, it was very much new to the market. People were probably looking at outsourcing, rather than insourcing. It was seen as the fastest way to market. Of course, as things have moved on with compliance and the regulatory outlook on the actual industry itself, more and more of it has gone into insourcing because then you have more control over your stack. I think a lot of the big operators are looking at moving all their stack in-house and that’s, primarily, so they can control it more and they can make changes much quicker. When you have a third-party – albeit some of them are very good partners – you don’t have all that control.

{audio:0:04:25} You mean control over the regulatory standards?

{audio:0:04:30} Because regulatory standards change so often, it’s very hard to maneuver through that. It allows you to dictate what you want to do and when you want to do it. When you have third parties, it becomes a bit harder to do that. It’s more speed to market, really, and that’s where they are keen to do that.

{audio:0:04:56} So the logic is, we need to get to market quickly and, therefore, Europe, 10, 15, 20 years ago used these partners to get into the markets quickly and they’re moving it in-house, as they become more mature and understand the market?

{audio:0:05:11} It’s maturity and the fact that the stacks are so big now, and the cost of it, as well. Insourcing is a lot cheaper, because you’ve got control of your own costs. When you outsource, it’s a little bit more expensive. It’s swings and roundabouts. What’s important or not important for each operator, right now.

{audio:0:05:36} But it takes you time to move? There are some switching costs?

{audio:0:05:40} For most operators, switching costs are quite high and with the current pandemic and what’s going on in the world right now, a lot of operators are looking at that as one of the main things. Where can we save costs? Bringing it in-house and moving away from having it in third parties, is deemed to be a good thing to do, right now.

{audio:0:06:02} How would you look at the difference between European operators and US operators and that shift between insourcing and outsourcing?

{audio:0:06:12} The European operators are much more mature. The Europeans have been doing this for the best part of 10, 15 years. In the UK, it’s probably more than that now. We’ve had all sorts of different regulations and demands, from the countries themselves, so we’ve got a fairly good idea of what’s required and what isn’t. Ideally, it would be nice if we had pan-European regulation, so it covers all of the gambling companies in one go. Unfortunately, we’re never going to get that; every country has its own way of doing things. Of course, over that time, we’ve learnt a lot around what can be done. What we need to do for one country, what we need to do for another country.

{audio:0:06:58} In the US, they’re still trying to learn what is important and what isn’t. It feels as if the US is going to go the same way as Europe; every state will have their own version of some regulation. Some of it is painful but, over time, it will mature and it will allow them to learn from what the Europeans have done. Hopefully, they can come to some common set of recommendations that can be followed there, as well.

{audio:0:07:31} Do you think that the US is going to follow the European outsourcing trend in the early days?

{audio:0:07:37} If you want it quick to market, it makes sense, because you can learn from the third-party suppliers. They can turn things around very quickly, for you. Of course, once you mature, once you understand exactly what you’re doing, then you can say, actually, that one part of the stack, I want to move it in-house, because I can control that; I can do a lot more with it, in-house, than I can do with a third party.

{audio:0:08:06} But that’s a 10-year story, like you said it had been in Europe?

{audio:0:08:10} It could be a 10-year story but it could be faster. Online gambling in the UK and Europe, it slowly developed. I think the view in the US is that it’s going to ramp up at a much faster pace. You’ve got a lot of the big guys there, sniffing around, seeing what’s important. Most of the big gambling companies are in America. They’ve got some expertise in how they do marketing and how they communicate to their customers, so they’re very mature, in that sense. It will be interesting to see how those learnings transfer to the European model itself.

{audio:0:08:50} In terms of which parts of the stack you think they will insource first, clearly the frontend seems to be one they are moving towards, anyway. But what about those player account management systems, the sportsbook?

{audio:0:09:06} I would say that the player account management system would probably be the next port of call. The reason why I say that is that a lot of the regulation around responsible gambling, know your customer, is very important, in that area. If you have control of that, it makes your life easier. A lot of the suppliers in this space, it’s very generic and they’ll provide one model and it fits everybody. If you want to tweak something, you want to have control of that.

{audio:0:09:40} So you’re right; the first one will be the frontend and the second will probably be the player account management. Things like marketing, CRM, all that sort of stuff, there’s good ways and bad ways of doing it. There’s a proliferation of tools out there and there is no point in reinventing that wheel and changing that to in-house. I do think what will be crucial is the bonusing engine and promotions. That is something that will be looked into, as well, because that’s quite key, in regards to moving that in-house.

{audio:0:10:16} You mentioned those player account management systems, Playtech, GAN, for example. In terms of responsible gambling and KYC offering, do they have one for everyone? Is it very hard to change that, if you are an operator?

{audio:0:10:32} They have a generic stack and then, on top of that, they will build specific components for your piece. I know, for a fact, that a lot of these guys don’t want to make it so specific to that operator. They want to keep it more generic because then it is easier for them to build it, across the stack. Of course, there is a cost, as well. If you want to make it very specific to your stack, it’s going to cost you money. That’s a conversation that you would need to have with those operators or with those suppliers.

{audio:0:11:08} I think it’s a bit of a partnership. The benefit of having someone like Playtech or GAN is, you get a one-stop shop. You can get the majority of the regulations and compliance stuff out of the box, and you’re done. But over time, it will change and evolve and then you’ve got to wait for those guys, for them to get ready to do their piece and then you will get your piece on top of it, as well. You’ve got to, basically, follow their roadmap of items to get delivered.

{audio:0:11:42} Do the operators look at the PAMs, like GAN and Playtech as – not a burden – but being concerned about how much they are paying them? What is the relationship really like?

{audio:0:12:01} It really depends. You’ve got to be philosophical in your view. These guys definitely will help you, initially, because they know what the market looks like and they’ve got expertise in that area. It depends how you work with them. I’ve always worked with them, as a partnership, rather than as a supplier. If you work with them purely as a supplier, you don’t get that same ethos and same work ethic. In my experience, I’ve always tried to work with them as a partnership and then we can deliver together. Of course, there is a monetary aspect and, of course, there are always negotiations in that area. You can’t get away from utilizing some of these suppliers due to the breadth of items they bring.

{audio:0:12:48} For instance, both the Playtech and GAN guys do provide games and they’ve got many games that they provide. There’s no way in hell that any of the big operators will build all those games, in-house; they would have to spend a lot of money to do that. We always need to have that flexibility to integrate with other game providers.

{audio:0:13:13} I guess that’s IMS, Playtech offering, or GAN’s GameStack platform, which does provide value for these operators to get up and running quickly, bolt on different games, on the frontend, plus have the critical piece, which is the player account management system.

{audio:0:13:28} You’re definitely right. I think that’s a really important thing to mention. The IMS and the GAN stack allows you to bolt on other games, very quickly. It gives you the opportunity to look around and see what’s important for you. There’s so many out there. There are thousands and thousands of games out there now, on a gaming stack. It’s about trying to find out what’s important and what you want to look at, as well.

{audio:0:13:59} With the American market, for instance, everything had to go through a laborious testing process. You need to get certified and jump through a lot of hoops. For the likes of GAN and Playtech, the majority of games that they will provide you have already been certified, so it’s very much easier for you to plug and play, into your platform.

{audio:0:14:23} How is that different to European regulation, 10 years ago?

{audio:0:14:29} We didn’t have it. To be honest, there was very, very little gaming regulation, 10 years ago. It was very much evolving. No one really knew what the best practices were. The UK was a leader in the market, originally. But their gaming regulations were very different from what they are now. It’s a lot more focused on responsible gambling, know your customer, player protection, funds and all those areas that are now very important and have moved on from where they were before.

{audio:0:15:12} 10 years ago, we wouldn’t have had those sort of checks and balances in place. But now, they are very important. Even with games themselves and the products we provide, the Gambling Commission, in the UK and all the other gaming regulators are very interested in seeing what you are providing, seeing what needs to be done and what hasn’t been done. The certification process has become more mature; we know what to do, with regards to certifying certain components of games or our sportsbook.

{audio:0:15:54} The regular monthly tests that we need to do, from an audit perspective, is now much more mature, so we understand that. We are moving the right way now, in the European market. But 10 years ago, we were all over the place. It’s just a learning curve.

{audio:0:16:13} What’s interesting though is that, even if the regulations were somewhat lax 10 years ago, all the operators still use Playtech’s games, frontend and stack, because it was just easier?

{audio:0:16:27} Very much so. It’s easier to just plug and play. Why would you want to spend tens of millions of pounds? At the time, gambling was still in its infancy and was still growing. Why would you want to spend so much money, building it in-house and it may fail? No one knew, at the time, if that was exactly the right thing to do. But over time, learnings have helped us work out what is and what isn’t important. The operators themselves are a bit more mature and they have a better understanding, now, of what’s important for them.

{audio:0:17:05} But GVC, for example, have still extended their contract with Playtech?

{audio:0:17:10} That’s purely on the gaming side of things. If you read the detail behind that contract, it’s very much on the gaming itself. As I mentioned before, for game development, you need quantity, but you need quality, as well. You can build 30 or 40 games yourself, in-house, no problem at all. But the demand in the market is for thousands of different varieties of games, so there’s no getting away from it. Playtech also offer things to GVC, as well, with regards to the retail side of things. They’re very much focused on some of the retail offerings they have, as well. It’s not just purely the online piece; it’s the whole package.

{audio:0:17:58} But they’re using the IMS stack?

{audio:0:18:01} No; the IMS stack has moved now. GVC stack drives have migrated, in-house. That was a project that took a year and a half and was undertaken as part of the move from Ladbrokes Coral, when Ladbrokes Coral was bought out by GVC. That was one of the main deals they wanted to do, as part of their cost-saving exercise. That’s what was deemed to be one of the most important things to be done.

{audio:0:18:32} What was the stack at Ladbrokes Coral before the acquisition?

{audio:0:18:37} That had Playtech IMS; they had SG platform, which is the OpenBet platform, as their backend and sportsbook. They used multiple feeds providers and the frontend was all in-house. The frontend was a mixture, actually. They had an in-house version, of the frontend and they had a Playtech version of the frontend, as well. They decided that was one of the most important things to tackle, to bring some of that functionality back in-house so, as I said before, they could support the business itself and have control of their own destiny.

{audio:0:19:20} That’s also part of the M&A synergies, that are crucial?

{audio:0:19:26} Yes, there are always synergies. Synergies are very important. As part of everything they did, you have to find some cost savings somewhere. I won’t go into detail about how many millions it was, but it was a fundamental cost saving, as part of the synergies of when GVC bough Ladbrokes Coral. It was very much trying to make a big saving on that platform, itself.

{audio:0:19:58} You had Playtech IMS, OpenBet sportsbook and then, once GVC did acquire Ladbrokes, how did you shift away from that? What was the process?

{audio:0:20:12} It’s a big journey; it’s a lot of work to be done and it’s no small undertaking. The migration, itself, it took about a year or a year and a half to do that and that was across every different stack. That wasn’t just Ladbrokes. It was Ladbrokes, Coral, Gala. There was a different program of work for each of those entities.

{audio:0:20:41} They were all using different components, I guess?

{audio:0:20:43} When Ladbrokes and Coral first merged, they both had separate stacks. They were very separate and there were no synergies in the stacks, themselves. The only synergy they had was around governance of those stacks, around the contractual side of things, with the likes of SG and Playtech. They amalgamated the contracts so that it became better for the business. But the actual stacks themselves were run separately.

{audio:0:21:17} Yes; completely different.

{audio:0:21:20} Same suppliers and similar sort of architecture, but very much separate, because you don’t want to put all your eggs in one basket. They were both two separate brands. So if one brand broke or had problems, you still had the other brand running. That was one of the reasons why they kept it separate. They are still are separate, in some instances. One of the first things that we looked at, when I was there, was to move the Ladbrokes frontend away from the Playtech frontend, onto our in-house piece. That was about a year’s worth of work and we moved it onto our own in-house platform. That was one step of the program.

{audio:0:22:03} The next bit was the player account management piece and that was another year’s worth of development, to get done, to move all the player account information across from the IMS to the GVC stack, itself.

{audio:0:22:21} On a scale of one to 10, I would probably say, 11. It’s pretty difficult. It’s a lot of work, a lot of integrations. The big thing is around performance and the customer look and feel. Things like the customer journey itself. As a customer, when you first go to Ladbrokes Coral, you’re used to this way of working. Of course, when you move to another platform, there’s some quirkiness and some different ways of working. Mapping that out, understanding exactly what needs to be done. The GVC player account management system is very different from the IMS and it was mapping all those items across. There was a lot of preparation work done, to understand what we had right now, at Ladbrokes Coral, and how we move it into the GVC world. That took a long time. And understanding the maturity, as well. I’d say that the IMS stack was far more mature than the GVC version, just because Ladbrokes Coral had been, very much into the UK space and the UK space was very much more mature. GVC has been more focused on the European part of the world, such as Germany and the Benelux countries. It’s a very different model so, again, a lot of learning.

{audio:0:23:48} Things that we’d done in Playtech IMS, we needed to port that functionality into the GVC stack and understand how we’d do that. That’s what took a lot of the time; understanding those items, before we could actually do the migration itself. I won’t say the migration is easy; it’s fraught with problems, especially when you move customer data. The GDPR and all those checks and balances that you need to have in place, come into play, as well. It’s never easy and it’s a lot of planning and understanding, before we can actually move it across from one place to another.

{audio:0:24:33} For operators, it seems as if there has to be a merger of this kind, such as the Ladbrokes Coral merger or the GVC acquisition of Ladbrokes, to make that move. You have a pre-meditated look at the cost structure and say, right, we can cut this out and this is going to be the plan for the next 12 to 18 months; investors know the story. Or you do it right at the beginning?

{audio:0:24:54} If you can do it right at the beginning, that is the best way to do it, but that’s where the cost is. Do you have the timeline to do it? It’s all about first to market, so do you want to spend months on end trying to work out exactly those components and doing that? Or do you want to get first to market and then get straight on to making revenue?

{audio:0:25:18} In terms of the specification and quality of GVC’s IMS equivalent today, how would you compare the two, in terms of functionality and quality?

{audio:0:25:32} They’re similar. Of course, there are learnings there and it’s a maturing market. Again, I think it’s understanding what’s missing and then putting it onto the roadmap. I would say the GVC model is getting better. It’s getting there; I just think it takes a bit of time. The beauty of the Playtech IMS was that it was a mature product and it’s been in lots of markets. It’s got a lot of input from various other operators who utilize it. It’s been built up, over time. I would say, when I first used IMS, about five, six, seven years ago, it was very immature and, over time, it’s been built on. So it does take time and I’m sure that the guys in GVC will get it to a level where it’s far better than what they had at IMS, in the Playtech stack.

{audio:0:26:36} So you moved away from Playtech IMS, you kept some of their games on the frontend; you bolted those games on the frontend of GVC. Did you keep OpenBet?

{audio:0:26:50} Yes, we kept OpenBet. Primarily because it was one of those platforms that was very hard to migrate across to your own in-house. Don’t get me wrong, there’s been talk about it for a long time. Many operators have thought about moving away from OpenBet. But for what you get and for what it provides, it’s very robust, it does what it says on the tin. It’s a bit like that analogy where no one is going fire you if you’re using IBM. This is a similar sort of thing; no one is going to fire you if you’re using OpenBet. Okay, it’s quite an expensive stack to maintain and operate, but it does what it says on the tin.

{audio:0:27:40} The tentacles of OpenBet or the SG platform, within Ladbrokes Coral, are quite big. It’s not just in your online piece; it also supports the retail arm, as well. To build all that out and build all that functionality onto the current GVC stack, would take years; it’s a lot of work. You never know; I’m no longer there so I can’t really comment on what the roadmap will be now but things do change and people would have a look at that, at some point in time.

{audio:0:28:14} At the time, when we first discussed it, it was deemed to be something to be looked at in the future. We wanted to tackle what was most important for us then and that was the Playtech IMS stack, and the frontend.

{audio:0:28:29} It’s interesting how the player account management system is more replaceable than the sportsbook.

{audio:0:28:41} Yes, it’s a strange one but, I think from a compliance and regulatory perspective, that’s where a lot of your changes are going to be made and you control your data. It’s your own customer data. You want to own your customer data; you don’t want to give it to a third party, to look after it for you. That’s another reason why it’s deemed very important to bring that back in-house.

{audio:0:29:14} Let’s say that Playtech and GAN own your data, what are the risks of that?

{audio:0:29:19} Of course, they won’t do anything with that; there’s all these NDAs and contracts that you have in place. But you always want to control your own destiny and then you can look at your data, you can manipulate it the way you want to. You can provide a bit more insight into what customer behavior is like. If you have control of that, it’s much easier to slice and dice that information yourself, rather than waiting on a third party to provide that interface, into that system.

{audio:0:29:52} Don’t GAN or IMS give you some kind of access?

{audio:0:30:00} They do give you some visibility to the platform itself. But I think a lot of it is controlled and it’s much easier if you know what the database and all the fields look like, so you have more control about how you would want to slice and dice, provide reporting, provide insights to what is happening with customers.

{audio:0:30:29} How do you look at the cost of the stack then, in terms of the take rate that you pay? You pay a percentage of revenue to Playtech IMS, for the player account management system, to the sportsbook; what is the rough difference in the pricing?

{audio:0:30:44} It varies, but the main rule of thumb is, on gaming and on player account, it’s a rev share piece. But on sportsbook, it’s a fixed price. You have a certain amount of money for licensing and a certain amount of money for development resource and that’s how it normally works, on the sportsbook side of things. On the gaming side and player account management, it’s very much a rev share operation. You pay a minimal amount for licensing fees, but you then pay a revenue share of what the game brings in our how many customers you have sitting on your database.

{audio:0:31:21} And OpenBet is roughly 8% to 10% take rate, of net gaming revenue, I think?

{audio:0:31:28} I think it is but, again, it varies from operator to operator.

{audio:0:31:33} You mentioned that sportsbook, in Europe, is a fixed price. So the sportsbook operator won’t receive any percentage of gaming revenue?

{audio:0:31:41} It depends. There are providers out there who do revenue share.

{audio:0:31:48} Yes; Kambi is a prime example of a rev share model. They will do the integration into your platform; you supply the player account management system and the backend and they will provide the fully-functional sportsbook. They provide the reporting around the sportsbook and the actual trading, as well, for a fee. This is normally a rev share and, depending on how big you are, it could be anything up to 25% rev share, but it varies from market to market and how big you are.

{audio:0:32:28} Looking at Playtech IMS versus GAN, how would you compare the two solutions?

{audio:0:32:41} That’s a tough one. I think where Playtech has been very focused on the European market, GAN has been very focused on the US piece. They spent a lot of time and effort building that US piece out, so they’ve got much more of a foothold in the US than the Playtech guys. As I say, it’s very hard to compare the two. It depends on what you want and what you are looking for and that maturity, as well. If you’re looking for a very mature sportsbook or gaming platform, that’s done a lot of work in the European market, then you look at Playtech. If you’re looking at it purely from a gaming perspective, and very much US focused, GAN will be the ones to probably have a conversation with.

{audio:0:33:38} Playtech offers the sportsbook and the stack and the platform and the player account management system and the frontend?

{audio:0:33:45} It’s a full stack, effectively?

{audio:0:33:47} Yes; they can offer the full stack, the full turnkey option. I don’t think GAN would offer all that. They would offer hook ins to other bits but they are very much gaming focused. Playtech can offer you the full turnkey solution.

{audio:0:34:00} How do you choose between taking a full turnkey solution, like Playtech, versus using part of Playtech or GAN, plus a Kambi and OpenBet sportsbook?

{audio:0:34:13} It depends on what your needs are, as a business. If you want best of everything, then would probably do it in a modular way and say you were getting the best of everything and hook it all together. That’s what a lot of the European guys have done, in the past. If you’re looking for a one-stop shop, you don’t want to have the hassle of dealing with multiple suppliers, multiple integrations, then you just give it to someone like Playtech. You’d say, I want this; give me a price and we’ll move on with it.

{audio:0:34:43} But if you’re looking for best of breed, best of everything, the patchwork quilt piece, whereby you integrate with different providers, is a better option.

{audio:0:34:57} Because you get the best sportsbook plus modularity?

{audio:0:35:00} You’d getter a better sportsbook, you’d get a good CRM, you would get a very good player account management system, you’d get a very good gaming platform. It all depends on where you are in the business and what you want to do, going forward. Do you have a one-stop shop or do you want to go for multiple vendors?

{audio:0:35:22} Could we talk about the sportsbook, in detail? I know this is a tricky question, because it depends on the operator, but when you’re choosing a sportsbook and you’re looking at OpenBet, Kambi, Playtech, what do you look at? What is the decision-making process?

{audio:0:35:49} I think it’s portability. Also, previous experience of other customers; you are here to do due diligence on these guys. You need to understand exactly what they’ve done for other providers. Do a lot of homework. It depends on what you want, as a business. For instance, a Kambi solution allows you to have trading, as well, on top of that. They do the trading for you. I think Playtech offers some of it but OpenBet wouldn’t offer that. They would only offer the platform without the trading.

{audio:0:36:29} It depends on where you want to go, as a business. Do you want a pure sportsbook provider who does their own trading? Do you want a third party to provide all that functionality as well? The likes of Playtech and Kambi can do that. It all depends on what you see your most important thing as being. A lot of the guys, for instance, will say, I’m purely a casino operator. All I care about is casino games and online games. I want to concentrate on that, but I do want to offer a sportsbook to my customers, as a value add. In that case, it makes more sense to have the trading part outsourced.

{audio:0:37:09} Other operators might go, actually, I want to concentrate on sportsbook, because that’s where my bread and butter is, so I want to control that and I just want to add the gaming pieces as an add-on. In that case, you would probably go with the OpenBet stack. Do you see yourself purely as a sportsbook operator or a casino operator, or a mixture? If you are a mixture, there are different sorts of questions you need to ask yourself. Do you want to have control of the sportsbook? Do you want to have control of the gaming part? It depends on where you want to go with that.

{audio:0:37:46} So the incumbent European operators, they obviously have the trading experience?

Former Digital Delivery Director at GVC Holdings

GVC Holdings & Online Gaming Technology Stacks

The technology stack strucutre of online gaming operators

How European operators approached building the stack over the last 15 years

Decision-making process between insourcing and outsourcing frontend, PAM and sportsbook

How GVC moved away from Playtech's IMS platform and re-platformed Ladbrokes sportsbook

Advantages of Kambi vs Openbet sportsbook

Stickiness of GAN for US operators and risks to insourcing PAM

Outlook on how US land operators will approach building technology