UK Data Shows Nearly 50% of Limited Bettors Are Winners
A new report from the UK Gambling Commission reveals a stark contrast with claims made by US sportsbooks regarding player limitations. The UK study found that nearly half of all bettors with restricted accounts were profitable, a finding that directly challenges the narrative from US operators that they only limit players who exploit system errors.
The UK Findings
The Gambling Commission’s analysis of nearly 15 million online betting accounts found that 4.3% had some form of commercial restriction.
The most common limitation was a “stake factor reduction,” affecting 2.68% of all active accounts. This practice limits a player’s maximum bet to a percentage of what an unrestricted customer can wager.
The most revealing data point, however, was the correlation between profitability and restrictions. The report showed that 46.78% of customers with restricted accounts were winning players over the lifetime of their account.
This is significantly higher than the overall average, where only 25.42% of all active customers were in the green. This suggests that winning players are disproportionately targeted for limitations.
The US Perspective
The UK findings stand in sharp contrast to the data presented by US operators. During a Massachusetts Gaming Commission roundtable,
BetMGM claimed that fewer than 1% of its players are limited, while FanDuel stated that restrictions apply to less than 0.05% of wagers. Fanatics went a step further, asserting that 90% of its winning players are not limited.
US sportsbooks have consistently argued that they do not limit players simply for winning. Instead, they claim restrictions are a necessary “safety valve” reserved for those who exploit technical glitches, engage in arbitrage betting, or abuse promotions.
A Tale of Two Regulatory Approaches
The differing data may show the different regulatory philosophies on either side of the Atlantic. The UK Gambling Commission, while stating it does not regulate commercial decisions, is proactively investigating the issue to understand its impact on the black market and player behavior. Its goal is to improve transparency and ensure operators are fair and open about how and why accounts are restricted.
In the US, the discussion is still in its early stages. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s efforts have seen little visible progress after initial meetings. The Wyoming Gaming Commission, however, is maintaining an ongoing dialogue with operators and continues to collect data on the issue. US regulators seem to agree that top-down rules on limits are not a viable solution, but the lack of transparency remains a major point of friction.
Recommended