Category: Big win

Futuristic gambling approach

Futuristic gambling approach

MSI became the center Suerte y Riesgo attention with visitors Futurisgic around its VR zones to experience Acción en vivo revolutionary VR technology at Approacy. The rules might include Futuristic gambling approach on the number of politicians from each continent to be included in the global-scale game. Not only is self-exclusion an unsuitable substitute for account closure in most circumstances, but it is also a key proxy for harm used by operators to learn how to identify potentially harmful gambling within play data.

Video

The Magic Economics of Gambling

UK, remember your settings and improve government services. Futuristlc also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content Fhturistic their services. Gamblibg have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. This publication is licensed Futufistic the terms of the Open Government Licence v3. To view this licence, alproach nationalarchives. Where we have identified any third party copyright ggambling you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Presented to Gajbling by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by Command of His Majesty on 27 April Futugistic gambling landscape has changed significantly since aplroach Few who were designing policy Comunidad inclusiva de juegos en línea the early s could have foreseen the nature and extent of the changes which have since reshaped our society, the economy Futuristiic this sector.

Multinational tech businesses now provide gambling services which customers can engage with from Premios esperando a los ganadores anywhere and at any time of gajbling or night. Newly available data and technology can both increase risks to players and facilitate innovative protections.

Land-based gambling also finds itself Fuuristic a very different Fkturistic in light of these changes, with some of aproach assumptions which approxch 18 years ago looking increasingly outdated. Likewise, our understanding of gambling-related harms and gambling disorder has developed enormously approafh recent years.

We launched this Review to take gamblig objective, comprehensive look Futuristjc the evidence. Our aim is to ensure our gambling regulation meets the challenges and seizes Fjturistic opportunities gamblng have come with approoach changes since the Gambling Act was passed.

Fituristic received around 16, submissions to our Call for Evidence approadh, and ministers and Futudistic have held hundreds of meetings with a huge range of stakeholders to inform a package of policies which will Futuritsic our gmbling laws fit for the digital age. We are enormously grateful to all of approacn who have contributed to our Review, Suerte y Riesgo those with personal experience Futursitic gambling-related addiction and harms who have spoken out about their own struggles or those gambping people they love.

Oportunidades de Juego Únicas the heart of our Review is making sure Suerte y Riesgo gambllng have the balance right Futurisitc consumer freedoms and choice on the one hand, and protection Futuristuc harm on the other.

It has become clear that we must do more to approwch those Inversión en casinos en línea risk of gamblinb and associated unaffordable losses. We must also pay particular gakbling to Futurietic sure children are approahc, including as they become young adults and for the first gamgling are able to gamble on a wide range of products.

Prevention of harm will gamlbing be better than a cure, so we are determined to Fhturistic consumer protections and prevent exploitative practices. This can and should be done Futuristjc a proportionate way. Millions of us enjoy gambling every year and gambing suffer no ill effects, so state intervention must be targeted to prevent addictive and harmful gambling.

Adults who choose to spend their money on gambling are free to do so, and we apprkach not inhibit the development of a sustainable and properly regulated industry which pays taxes and Fuhuristic employment to service that demand. What we will not approach is for Futuristuc to place commercial objectives ahead of customer wellbeing so that vulnerable people are exploited.

This white paper outlines a comprehensive FFuturistic of FFuturistic measures to achieve these objectives across wpproach facets of gambling Electrónicos a precios rebajados, building on our work over recent years.

Working Ganar dinero riendo the Gambling Commission approadh others, we will now make online gambling safer Juegos de casino con Megaways slots an overhaul of game apprroach rules to remove Futuridtic features known to exacerbate risks, and put new Suerte y Riesgo on operators to Ritmo frenético unchecked and unaffordable spending.

We will tackle aggressive advertising practices like using Grand Slam de golf en Europa in ways which exacerbate Futuristid.

We will also develop independent vambling that gzmbling awareness of the gambllng of approacj harm while helping to Suerte y Riesgo the fear of stigma that stops people coming forward for help. We will work with the approwch to create an ombudsman Suerte y Riesgo adjudicate complaints and order redress when things go wrong.

We Futuridtic modernise the rules for land-based gambling and make sure Futurisic all gambling, gamling it online or gsmbling, is overseen by a beefed up, Suerte y Riesgo, better funded Futjristic more proactive Gambling Commission which can make full use of Suerte y Riesgo and data to keep abreast gamvling the Futuristtic.

Great Britain has been approah as a world leader Suerte y Riesgo the oversight of gambling, apprlach our comparatively low problem gambling rate aprpoach internationally successful gambling sector.

I hope this new package and the policies Futuirstic we will work with the Gambling Commission and others approaach implement will continue to be seen as world leading. To help ensure that, I encourage all of those with an interest in gambling Mesas exclusivas to continue working Futuriatic us as we approacu the ideas, consult on specifics, and deliver real change.

The Rt Hon Lucy Frazer KC MP Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Ensuring that gambling happens safely is a top government priority.

We recognise that people should be free to spend their money as they choose, but when gambling poses the risk of becoming a clinical addiction the government needs to ensure there are proper protections.

That is why change is now needed. Having a strong regulator with the powers and resources needed to oversee an increasingly high-tech industry is essential to ensuring this. We also need to have the right controls in place on the products people can be offered, safeguards covering how those who gamble are treated by operators, and the right safety nets in place to stop harm where it occurs.

Gambling in its variety of forms is a popular pastime in Great Britain, with nearly half of all adults participating in at least one form including the National Lottery each month. Most spend small amounts which are similar to or less than spending on other leisure activities and do not report experiencing any harm from gambling.

Gambling harms can wreck lives, impact families and communities, and even lead to suicide in extreme cases. The package of measures outlined in this white paper will significantly increase protections with the aim of preventing harm. Our aim in the Review has been to assess the best available evidence to ensure that our goals can be delivered in the digital age, and that we have the balance of regulation right between protecting people from the potentially life-ruining effects of gambling-related harm while respecting the freedom of adults to engage in a legitimate leisure activity.

We need to ensure that our regulatory and legislative frameworks continue to deliver on the three foundational principles of the Act: children and vulnerable people should be protected, the sector should be fair and open, and gambling should be crime free.

The Review launched with a call for evidence which ran from December to March and received 16, submissions. Ministers and officials have supplemented this with hundreds of meetings with a wide range of stakeholders. We have also received advice from the Gambling Commissionwhich is being published alongside this white paper.

We are grateful to all those who have contributed to the Review. The best available evidence suggests that particular elements and products within online gambling are associated with an elevated risk of harm. Equally, technological development has presented new opportunities to protect players.

Making the most of these is central to ensuring our framework is fit for the digital age. Operators are already required to identify customers at risk of harm and take action, but there have been too many cases of interventions coming too late, or in some cases not at all.

The Gambling Commission will consult on two forms of financial risk check. Firstly, background checks at moderate levels of spend, to check for financial vulnerability indicators such as County Court Judgments.

We propose these should take place at £ net loss within a month or £ within a year. We also propose that the triggers for enhanced checks should be halved for those aged 18 to 24 given evidence on increased risk.

Our intention is that these checks will also be frictionless for customers and conducted online by credit reference agencies or through other means such as open banking in the first instance. Further information will only be requested from customers as a last resort where it is necessary to complete an assessment, and the use of any data gathered through such checks will be restricted to assessing financial risk and indicators of financial distress.

Operators will be required to respond appropriately to any identified risks on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the information they know about the customer, but it is not the intent that government or the Gambling Commission should set a blanket rule on how much of their income adults should be able to spend on gambling.

Individual operators can take steps to prevent harm on their own platform but people suffering gambling harms usually hold multiple accounts or can open new ones easily. Where there are serious concerns, operators must work together. We will ensure this data sharing is never used for commercial purposes.

The Gambling Commission will review and consult on updating design rules for online products, building on its recent work on online slots to consider features like speed of play, illusion of player control and other intensifying features which can exacerbate risk.

Products which are safer by design will help prevent harm at source. Online slots have been shown to be a particularly high risk product, associated with large losses, long sessions, and binge play, but unlike land-based gaming machines they have no statutory stake limits.

We propose to introduce a stake limit for online slots, consulting on a limit of between £2 and £15 per spin, to structurally limit the risks of harmful play. We will also consult on slot-specific measures to give greater protections for 18 to year-olds who the evidence suggests may be a particularly vulnerable cohort.

This will include options of a £2 stake limit per spin; a £4 stake limit per spin; or an approach based on individual risk. As with other sectors, we want consumers to be empowered to make informed decisions and manage spending.

We will take the insights from behavioural science to make player-centric tools better. For instance, the Commission will consult on implementing potential improvements to player-set deposit limits such as making them mandatory or opt-out rather than opt-in, and we will continue work with the gambling and financial services sectors to make customer-controlled gambling transaction blocks as robust as possible.

Certain types of competitions and prize draws which offer significant prizes such as a luxury home or car now operate online in ways which could not have been foreseen in We will explore the potential for regulating competitions of this type to introduce appropriate controls around player protection and, where applicable, returns to good causes.

Gambling advertising and marketing has expanded into new channels and grown significantly since the Act came into force.

It is clear that gambling advertising can have a disproportionate impact on particular groups such as people who are already experiencing problems, and that some aggressive advertising practices can exacerbate harms.

In a sector with a known addiction risk, the online data-driven targeting of certain individuals with promotional offers to encourage further spending presents risks because it actively encourages individuals to incur larger and larger losses.

We have seen evidence showing that customers who have claimed online bonus offers are more likely to engage in high-risk gambling behaviour, especially those already at a higher risk of harm who are also likely to be targeted with more offers.

The Gambling Commission has recently strengthened restrictions on online VIP schemes to make sure they are not used to exploit gamblers, and has introduced rules to stop bonus offers and other marketing being targeted at people showing significant indicators of harm. It will now take forward work to review the design and targeting of incentives such as free bets and bonuses to ensure there are clear rules and fair limits on re-wagering requirements and time limits so they do not encourage excessive or harmful gambling.

The Commission will consult on proposed new controls. We want customers to have greater control over the types of marketing they receive, such as opting-in for online bonuses and offers for different types of gambling products. The Commission will consult on introducing such controls.

Our evidence also suggests that operators should go further in their use of technology to target online adverts away from children and vulnerable people, using the functionality available to automatically exclude people who are showing signs of being harmed or whose online profile is not clearly discernible as being someone over We welcome that some major online platforms have introduced the facility for customers to opt-out of all gambling adverts, and strongly encourage others to do so.

The Online Advertising Programme will explore further mechanisms to reduce harm from advertising across all sectors. We will strengthen informational messaging including on risks associated with gambling, from information at the point of purchase to messages within advertising, and identifying what messaging works for different contexts and audiences.

Replacing industry ownership, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health and Social Care will work together with the Gambling Commission, drawing on public health and social marketing expertise, to establish the most effective messaging and how it should be used.

Advertising rules have changed to prohibit prominent sportspeople, in particular Premier League footballers, from appearing in gambling adverts, on the grounds of their strong appeal to children.

We also welcome the commitment from governing bodies across the sport sector to develop a cross-sport gambling sponsorship code, with rules to make sure all sponsorship deals are socially responsible. We will work with sports bodies to refine the code over the coming months.

The Gambling Commission was created by the Act as the primary regulator for the gambling sector. We must ensure it has the powers and resources it needs to deliver its statutory remit, with the flexibility to meet future challenges. The Commission regulates a complex and challenging sector that is constantly evolving.

We also note that the Commission has less flexibility than other regulators to adjust its own fees in light of inflation or emerging challenges. When Parliamentary time allows, we will replace the requirement to set every fee in secondary legislation with more suitable controls.

: Futuristic gambling approach

Top technology trends shaping the future of online gambling

In the adrenaline-fueled arena of sports gambling, a revolution is unfolding - one powered by artificial intelligence AI. This technological marvel is transforming the art of sports betting from a game of chance into a symphony of data-driven precision.

Let us explore the burgeoning world where AI intersects with sports gambling, turning bettors from mere spectators into strategic players in a game where data, algorithms, and probabilities redefine the odds.

Sports gambling, a realm where intuition, experience, and sometimes sheer luck have traditionally dictated the rules, is undergoing a transformative shift. AI, with its unparalleled ability to analyze vast datasets and discern patterns beyond human capability, is emerging as the new MVP in this field.

This transition from gut-driven bets to AI-powered predictions is not just about increasing the odds of winning; it's about elevating sports gambling to an art of calculated strategies.

Companies like Stratagem and Stats Perform are harnessing the power of AI to analyze historical data, player statistics, and even weather conditions to predict game outcomes with astonishing accuracy. For instance, Stratagem uses advanced machine learning algorithms to turn data from thousands of past games into insightful betting strategies, offering gamblers an edge that was unimaginable a few years ago.

The future of sports betting is not just smarter but also more personalized. AI systems like BetBuddy incorporate machine learning to tailor betting suggestions based on individual betting styles and histories. This personalized approach ensures that each gambler receives recommendations that align with their preferences and risk appetite, turning every bet into a bespoke experience.

Gambler on a Computer with Multi-Monitor Workstation with Real-Time game information. In-play betting, where bets are placed during the game, is where AI truly shines.

Platforms like Swish Analytics use AI to provide real-time data and predictions, allowing gamblers to make informed decisions as the game unfolds. This dynamic aspect of AI-powered betting brings a new level of excitement and engagement to sports gambling. AI algorithms are being tailored to understand the intricacies of esports, providing insights and predictions for games like Dota 2 and League of Legends.

Companies like Unikrn are at the forefront of this, offering AI-driven betting advice on esports, opening up new avenues for gamblers in this rapidly growing field. One of the most significant contributions of AI in sports gambling is in ensuring fair play.

AI systems are increasingly being used to detect and prevent fraudulent activities and match-fixing. The FDS Fraud Detection System by Sportradar uses AI to analyze betting patterns and flag irregular activities, helping maintain the integrity of sports and betting alike.

Moreover, AI plays a huge role in risk management and responsible gambling. AI is not just about maximizing wins; it's also about promoting responsible gambling. Tools like PlayScan use AI to analyze gambling behavior and identify risky patterns, providing alerts and resources to help maintain control.

This aspect of AI ensures that sports gambling remains a form of entertainment rather than a problem. Odds making, a critical component of sports betting, has been revolutionized by AI. Traditional methods of setting odds are being complemented and sometimes replaced by AI algorithms that can process more variables and data points than ever before.

Users can represent themselves with a unique avatar, the behaviour of which they can control just like they control their own conduct in the real world. As already mentioned — unlike traditional online casinos, the metaverse can offer users a very authentic-feeling digital representation of the real casino experience using virtual reality technology.

To represent themselves, users can use a unique avatar, the behaviour of which they can control just like they control their own conduct in the real world. Instead, players convert their real-world currency into one of the cryptocurrencies that are accepted in the metaverse and deposit funds using a crypto wallet.

Players can, however, exchange the cryptocurrencies and NFTs that they win for traditional currencies. Playing online casino games in the metaverse has various benefits. Not only does it provide much more immersive experiences and interactions compared to online gambling platforms, metaverse casinos also offer players higher levels of security and transparency.

And without any third parties required to verify transactions, deposits and withdrawals can be processed virtually instantly. One example of a metaverse casino is the ICE Poker casino, created by Decentral Games, where avatars dressed in streetwear and sunglasses hover around the poker tables.

More than , gamblers meet on this virtual casino platform on a monthly basis. All the profits generated from playing at this metaverse casino go to the players and are stored on the blockchain.

Winners and losers can also be verified on the blockchain, which, in terms of trust and transparency, is a huge benefit of metaverse gambling. The online casino landscape has seen significant changes over the past few years, with newer, more innovative platforms being launched almost on a monthly basis.

Advanced casino technology has also ushered in mobile gaming, enabling players to enjoy their favourite games while running errands or commuting to work. VR, AR, and MR enable a far greater immersive, 3D online gambling experience than ever before, and it may not be too long before we can play poker or blackjack against an AI version of actual poker or blackjack legends.

Renowned keynote speaker Richard van Hooijdonk offers inspiring lectures on world trends, technology, and marketing. Top technology trends shaping the future of online gambling. Online gambling is becoming more immersive, more secure, and increasingly competitive, affecting the way we play, interact with games and other players, and the types of devices we use.

Industries: Entertainment. The magic of data science is… personalisation Improving the gambling experience with VR and AR Cryptocurrencies are set to dominate the online gambling sector Gambling in the metaverse Online gambling has seen spectacular growth in the past two decades, with virtual reality casinos, live dealers, and provably fair and secure online gambling experiences increasingly becoming the norm, rather than the exception.

Improving the gambling experience with VR and AR In the past ten years, the casino industry has seen tremendous changes. Gambling in the metaverse As already mentioned — unlike traditional online casinos, the metaverse can offer users a very authentic-feeling digital representation of the real casino experience using virtual reality technology.

Closing thoughts The online casino landscape has seen significant changes over the past few years, with newer, more innovative platforms being launched almost on a monthly basis. They bring competitive advantages, increase the effectiveness of operations, make our daily lives more efficient, improve healthcare, and significantly change the landscape and beyond.

DOWNLOAD THIS FREE E-BOOK. Free trendservice. Receive the latest insights, research material, e-books, white papers and articles from our research team every month, for free!

More interesting blogs. November 23, Innovative technologies enhancing the World Cup experience. June 17, November 30, The metaverse: blurring the lines between our physical and virtual worlds.

June 15, The future of football is all about high-tech innovation. January 13, How tech like AI and machine learning are transforming the world of the arts. October 23, AI takes the stage as it transforms the music industry.

The Future of Online Gambling: Emerging Trends and Technologies | Play3r Gamblihg, Futuristic gambling approach outlined Futurietic, more gammbling communities Suerte y Riesgo higher rates gabling people experiencing Grandes ganancias en casinos gambling. Futuristic gambling approach gambling is an Suerte y Riesgo that Futurkstic continually evolved and shows no Futuristicc of slowing down. Operators are already Suerte y Riesgo to identify customers at risk gamblign harm and take action, but Futuristic gambling approach have been too many cases of interventions coming too late, or in some cases not at all. How gambling operators use the data available to them was also covered by campaign and consumer groups, with some levelling specific criticisms regarding data governance and processing. If necessary, we will mandate a different or more comprehensive approach to ensure the system meets our objectives in a proportionate and safe way. There are also significant variations in the rates of problem gambling associated with each product, but consistent evidence that gambling online and the use of multiple gambling products are associated with higher PGSI scores.
Top technology trends shaping the future of online gambling

Some recent innovations in mobile gaming include:. Artificial intelligence AI has made significant strides in recent years, and the online gambling industry is taking notice. AI-driven algorithms can analyze player behavior to create personalized marketing campaigns, offering targeted bonuses and promotions.

Additionally, AI can improve customer support by providing instant assistance through chatbots, reducing wait times, and increasing overall satisfaction. Virtual reality VR technology can potentially revolutionize how users interact with online casinos.

By donning a VR headset, players can be transported to a virtual casino environment, interacting with other players and enjoying an immersive gambling experience. As VR technology becomes more affordable and accessible, we can expect more online casinos to invest in this area to attract and retain players.

Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, have gained significant traction recently. As a result, many online casinos now offer cryptocurrency deposits and withdrawals, providing players with a secure, anonymous, and fast payment method.

eSports, or competitive video gaming , has grown tremendously in recent years. As the popularity of eSports continues to soar, marketing professionals can expect to see more opportunities for sponsorship, branding, and targeted promotions in this space.

The industry faces increased scrutiny and regulation as online gambling becomes more mainstream. Many jurisdictions now require online casinos to implement responsible gambling measures, such as self-exclusion options, deposit limits, and player education. Marketing professionals should be aware of these requirements and adapt their campaigns accordingly, emphasizing the importance of responsible gambling while promoting their brands.

An interesting question arises over how long it would be before the bookmakers develop a counter to the app or a more sophisticated basis for gambling. Betting on Robot Sport s — First there was Robot Wars, but now we can gamble on robot team sports uch as the Robot World Cup.

In addition to the usual team sports, robots also take part in a revitalised Krypton Factor including physical strength and dexterity and intelligence tests.

Rules have had to be adjusted across a number of sports and activities. They have to take account of the fact that the AI brains of participating robots have very quickly developed new tactics and approaches to win the game.

Match Fixing Fixer — This would see the use of AI to analyse match outcomes against an historical dataset of matches, outcomes, weather conditions, fitness levels, the past form of the participants, and the betting patterns for those events. This would help monitor a range of different team and individual sporting events to help ensure the validity of the competition and determine anomalous results that could be the subject of match fixing.

could help. Not only will this enforce the fairness of the gamble, but it could also help ensure the integrity of sporting competition and endeavour. Predictive Analytics-Free Sites — If AI could analyse and process all the data available on sports and other betting events, what would be the point of gambling?

Services without the input of AI that rely only upon human knowledge and experience would be a new segment to capitalize on.

Gambling Problem Detection — Artificial intelligence could prevent users from developing a gambling problem by restricting the amount of time dedicated to this activity. If this feature is turned off by the user, AI could alert friends and family when the user is surpassing their recommended limits.

PR — Aftershocks and Opportunities 1 — Scenarios for a Post-Pandemic Future. An opportunity for fresh perspectives. While the world grapples with the current unfolding crisis, Read More… Why are US firm buying up towns?

Could AI resolve geopolitical conflicts? How might Crypto transform financial markets? New book Aftershocks and Opportunities 2: Navigating the Next Horizon bursts with provocative ideas, disruptive Read More… Fast Future Publishing Limited is a company incorporated in England and Wales registered number: © Fast Future Publishing Limited.

Basket 0. My Account. Search … Search. The payment fundamentals are the most essential part of the entire solution. This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here.

More From Forbes. Mar 19, , pm EDT. Mar 19, , am EDT. Mar 18, , pm EDT. Mar 17, , pm EDT. Mar 12, , pm EDT. Mar 12, , am EDT. Edit Story. Forbes Leadership CMO Network. Jeff Fromm Contributor Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Jan 30, , pm EST. Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Linkedin. MORE FROM FORBES ADVISOR. Best Travel Insurance Companies By Amy Danise. Best Covid Travel Insurance Plans By Amy Danise. Follow me on LinkedIn. Check out my website. Jeff Fromm.

Generic talks

The future of online gambling is bright, with emerging trends and technologies providing exciting opportunities for marketing professionals. By staying informed and adapting to changes in the industry, they can ensure their campaigns remain relevant, engaging, and effective.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Facebook Instagram Mail Twitter Youtube. Sign in. your username. your password. Forgot your password?

Get help. Privacy Policy. Password recovery. your email. RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR. However, a small proportion do suffer significant harm as a result of gambling, and the PHE evidence review included a detailed quantitative analysis on this issue.

Sources: NatCen, British Gambling Prevalence Survey ; Gambling Behaviour in Great Britain in , NHS Digital, Health Survey for England — Supplementary Analysis for Gambling, However, this is based on smaller sample sizes than the data in Figure 3 and on the PGSI mini screen rather than all 9 questions above.

Figures may also have been impacted by the recent fall in gambling participation or other behaviour changes linked to the coronavirus COVID pandemic, including the unavailability of some gambling activities.

In a recent pilot for a new approach to collecting data on population problem gambling rates , the Commission found the sample surveyed had a higher problem gambling prevalence rate of 1. There is significant detail underneath this population problem gambling rate which the PHE review considered.

In particular, it found men were more likely to be experiencing problem gambling than women and that 16 to year-olds had the highest average PGSI score of any age group.

There are also significant variations in the rates of problem gambling associated with each product, but consistent evidence that gambling online and the use of multiple gambling products are associated with higher PGSI scores.

However, there are limitations to all of these sources including incomplete coverage and lack of detailed information. Harmful gambling is strongly correlated with and likely to exacerbate existing health disparities.

There is a higher prevalence of problem gambling among people with poor health, low life satisfaction and wellbeing scores, and the problem gambling rate is higher among more deprived groups than less deprived groups.

It is also important to recognise that problems with gambling can be one of a number of harms individuals suffer simultaneously; for instance while gambling addiction can impact mental health and wellbeing, poor mental health and heavy alcohol use are commonly suffered alongside gambling harms.

Due to a lack of longitudinal evidence the PHE report did not establish causal relationships with these other health harms, or in the case of mental health issues, found that relationships appeared to go in both directions.

This includes approximately 1. Alongside the harm to the individual, gambling-related harms can have negative impacts on other people and wider communities. There are also benefits to gambling which should be weighed in decision making, although they do not negate the need to prevent gambling-related harm.

While the risks vary by product and other factors, gambling participation is generally not in itself harmful and may even be positive. Gambling can be sociable, can help tackle loneliness and isolation, can enhance the enjoyment of other activities, and can be a valuable pastime in its own right, although quantifying these benefits is inherently difficult.

There are also economic benefits to having a well regulated industry to service this demand. The sector pays approximately £2 billion per year to the government in duties excluding Lottery Duty , accounted for £5. While many gambling companies do operate overseas hubs, the jobs in this country are geographically dispersed, with hubs of high skill work in areas like Stoke-on-Trent and Leeds.

The gambling sector also contributes significantly to other industries, including sport, advertising and racing. Horse racing in particular has a mutually beneficial relationship with betting, and the levy paid by bookmakers on their racing derived revenue contributes around £ million a year to support the sport.

Gambling can also contribute to tourism, for instance to seaside towns across the country, or high-end casinos attracting wealthy overseas visitors who spend across a number of other sectors while in this country. Additionally, some gambling products enable charities and other non-commercial organisations such as sports clubs to raise valuable funds.

The evidence suggests that particular elements and products of online gambling are associated with an elevated risk of harm. This chapter proposes a range of targeted interventions:. This will target three key risks identified by the Gambling Commission in its casework: binge gambling, significant unaffordable losses over time and financially vulnerable customers.

In general, this government agrees with the principle that people should be free to spend their money how they see fit, so we propose a targeted system of financial risk checks that is proportionate to the risk of harm occurring.

Assessments should start with unintrusive checks at moderate levels of spend we propose £ net loss within a month or £ within a year , and if necessary escalate to checks which are more detailed but still frictionless at higher loss levels where the risks are greater we propose £1, loss within a day or £2, within 90 days.

We also propose that the triggers for enhanced checks should be lower for those aged 18 to Once a suitably effective and secure platform is in place, the Gambling Commission will consult on making data sharing on high risk customers mandatory for all remote operators.

Individual operators can take steps to prevent harm on their own platform, but people suffering gambling harms often hold multiple accounts. While account verification is on the whole effective, there are difficulties in matching payment details to the account holder.

This creates compliance risks and potential harms for those experiencing problem gambling and affected others. With new technologies and payment regulations now in place, the Commission will work with others to consider what more can be done to reduce this risk.

The Gambling Commission will review and consult on updating design rules for online products, building on its recent work on online slots to consider features like speed of play which can exacerbate intensity and risk. Products which are safer by design will help prevent harm at source and reduce the reliance on reactive harm detection systems.

We propose to introduce a maximum stake limit for online slots games of between £2 and £15, subject to consultation. We will also consult on measures to give greater protections for 18 to year-olds who the evidence suggests may be a particularly vulnerable cohort.

This will include options of a £2 limit per stake; a £4 limit per stake; or an approach based on individual risk. Tools like deposit limits can help people gamble within their means, but may be underused and not widely optimised for harm prevention. Informed by insights from behavioural science, the Gambling Commission will explore making these tools mandatory for players to use or opt-out rather than opt-in, as well as other changes to reduce friction and help people gamble safely before any problems arise.

While GAMSTOP is the principal means of online self-exclusion, we welcome that banks and payment providers offer opt-in gambling transaction blocks. The gambling industry should work with financial service firms to enable the blocks to be extended to other payment methods like bank transfers.

Online operators use data to identify and restrict accounts in response to suspected fraudulent activity and for commercial reasons for example customers betting too successfully.

It is important that customers are made aware of the circumstances in which such restrictions may be applied and provided with explanations where it does occur.

Operators sometimes put artificial behavioural barriers in the way of consumers doing what they want. Activities such as withdrawing winnings, closing accounts and accessing important information should be made as frictionless as possible. Behavioural barriers and friction should only be used to keep customers safe rather than impede them from taking decisions.

While the risks are not fundamental to such arrangements and licensees are rightly held to account, there have been examples of non-compliance associated with these arrangements. The Gambling Commission will consolidate and reinforce expectations for operators on contracting with third parties, including white labels.

Prize draws and competitions have been able to grow significantly and advertise widely in the digital age. These competitions, unlike lotteries, are not regulated. This is because they offer a free entry route for instance via ordinary post or have a skill-based element.

We propose to explore the potential for regulating the largest competitions of this type to introduce appropriate controls around player protection and, where applicable, returns to good causes, and to improve transparency.

The online gambling landscape now is very different to the one which existed in Online gambling overtook land-based gambling by GGY — the total value of funds staked minus any winnings or prizes paid out — in September and continues to grow. In the year to December , This has largely been driven by a channel shift from land-based gambling, where participation has fallen from While the lasting impacts of the COVID pandemic remain to be seen, it seems likely that the shift towards online participation, as we have seen in many other sectors, will continue.

Perhaps more significant change has occurred underneath this wider channel shift, as new technologies have also reshaped where, when and how people gamble online.

Online gamblers can now gamble at any time and in any location they choose, and while online gambling from home remains the most popular choice, in 1 in 5 had done so outside the home. Technological change has also enabled innovation in both the betting and gaming product offer. For betting, this has predominantly entailed increased betting opportunities.

Online gaming products too have changed as the sector has matured, with rapid, stimulating and intense random number generator powered games like online slots becoming increasingly popular and making up a larger portion of operator profits over time. Further change is inevitable.

According to the Health Survey for England , excluding National Lottery draws, 4. These trends have also been identified in evidence highlighted by PHE. Some academics, treatment providers and groups with personal experience have also argued the environment of online gambling and certain structural characteristics of online products are inherently risky for all customers, and particularly for those who are otherwise vulnerable.

We also received evidence from charities that people facing challenges like social isolation or cognitive dysfunction such as following a brain injury could be particularly attracted to remote gambling opportunities and fail to understand or properly assess the risks.

However, the online environment also provides many opportunities to make sure people are gambling safely. Equally, customers can be easily empowered with a range of tools like financial limits which are inherently harder to implement offline. Our vision for remote gambling is that the risks are mitigated, and that we maximise the use of technology and data to protect people in a targeted way at all stages of the customer journey.

The proposals outlined will deliver:. This section takes stock of the existing protections in place for online gamblers to contextualise the proposals outlined later in this chapter.

Online gambling is a fully regulated sector, and the rules governing it are largely set out in licence conditions or technical standards on remote operators rather than in statute.

This enables the requirements to be more detailed and to be amended more quickly over time to respond to technological change or new risks to consumers. While the use of these tools by customers is voluntary and operators are afforded a degree of discretion around how they are designed, there are requirements attached to certain tools.

For example, the option to set a deposit limit must be available to all customers from when they first open an account or deposit funds, and increasing a deposit limit must take at least 24 hours to come into effect.

While most gambling management tools are provided to help customers gamble safely, all operators must also offer self-exclusion facilities to help those who wish to stop gambling altogether.

In March , it became mandatory for licensed operators to sign up to GAMSTOP, the multi-operator self-exclusion scheme. Other sectors and non-profit organisations can also help consumers manage their gambling. Similar tools are increasingly available from other payment providers like PayPal.

Services such as Gamban and BetBlocker also allow consumers to block access to gambling apps and websites on internet devices. When used in conjunction with self-exclusion, payment and website blocks can add a further layer of protection for people recovering from gambling harm.

However, while these tools are helpful for many online gamblers, they are not enough to fully mitigate the risks, so there are also a range of obligations on operators to identify and prevent gambling-related harm. Where needed, the actions taken must include encouraging or requiring a player to set limits, actively signposting to support services, suspending marketing in cases where there are strong indicators of harm, and unilaterally suspending or closing accounts.

Source: Gambling Commission, Remote Customer Interaction Guidance. In addition, the regulator also sets the Remote Technical Standards which outline the security and technical standards for remote gambling operations.

As well as specifying how certain account level protections should function, these include specific rules for online gambling product design, aimed at making sure games operate in a socially responsible manner and do not encourage potentially harmful gambling activity.

In February , the Gambling Commission announced revised standards for online slot games to make them safer by design. These mirror many of the existing controls on gaming machines and tackle some of the features which exacerbate the risk of harm to gamblers; for example, increasing the intensity of play or encouraging a false perception of the game, such as feeling in control of the game outcome or believing a game is due a payout.

Finally, there is also a range of other universal controls to make the online gambling experience safer, largely imposed through licence conditions on gambling operators.

For example, there are strong age verification measures for setting up accounts to prevent children gambling, reverse withdrawals have been banned since October building on guidance issued in May , and the use of credit cards to gamble online was banned in April , which the evidence suggests has been useful in preventing harm.

Key evidence as it relates to our policy proposals is discussed in more detail below, but a number of overarching themes emerged across the submissions.

Firstly, there was significant discussion of the existing controls and the majority including industry stakeholders presented evidence that current protections could and should be further improved. Operator responses largely put this in the context of the recent changes which have been introduced through voluntary industry codes or Gambling Commission mandated action.

For instance, many discussed the significant changes to their harm detection systems since the Commission updated its customer interaction requirements and guidance in July , and others mentioned measures like the ban on credit cards in April Most industry submissions pointed to recent Gambling Commission data which has since been updated which suggests a decline in the population problem gambling rate, as evidence that the incremental changes are having the desired effect.

They therefore make the case for continued changes, but cautious ones which fully evaluate the spate of recent measures before proceeding.

Conversely, many outside the industry submitted evidence on the harms which individuals had suffered in spite of the existing controls, which they argued were therefore ineffective. In their view, significant new controls are needed to curb the risk of harm presented by certain features of online gambling including industry practices.

A number of individuals submitted evidence including case studies which showed that signs of harm can be missed and that individuals are permitted and occasionally encouraged to continue gambling.

To support this position, many respondents cited the Patterns of Play interim report. These individuals may not have been spending more than they could afford, but many respondents felt operators should have been doing more to check.

Some contended the models can now even identify and prevent harm before it occurs, but this is hard to verify. Operators broadly argued in favour of these tailored controls, rather than measures which may limit the enjoyment of gambling for the majority of players who suffer no ill effects and may if curtailed in their gambling turn to unlicensed operators.

How gambling operators use the data available to them was also covered by campaign and consumer groups, with some levelling specific criticisms regarding data governance and processing. In addition to failing to identify those suffering harm, respondents identified wider practices which might be detrimental to consumers, such as the profiling of customers and the restriction of winning accounts.

This was part of a broader sentiment across some respondents that consumers needed to be better empowered in their dealings with remote gambling products and companies.

In addition to submissions to the call for evidence, we also received advice from the Gambling Commission , which emphasised the importance of measures to prevent harm throughout the remote customer journey, and committed to build on recent work to improve protections.

Most online gamblers have relatively modest losses. This suggests most customers do not spend above levels which would be usual in other leisure sectors, although personal circumstances on whether these losses are acceptable will vary.

This distribution means that operator revenue is predominantly derived from a relatively small cohort of high spending customers.

Some submissions pointed out that a reliance on a high spending minority is not unusual in other sectors such as air travel and that higher than average spending on gambling is not in itself evidence of harm as discretionary income varies significantly across individuals.

Nonetheless, this is a potentially concerning pattern in a sector with a known addiction risk, and where a key manifestation of that addiction is high spending. A recent survey of UK gamblers estimated that moderate-risk and problem gamblers collectively comprising While there are real complexities that make it difficult to pinpoint a precise figure, the weight of the evidence suggests that those being harmed by gambling are overrepresented among those with high gambling spend.

Source: Natcen Patterns of Play Slide The obligations on remote operators to monitor account activity and intervene where individuals display signs of potential harm are a cornerstone of the current package of protections online. This approach allows tailored interventions to prevent harm without interrupting the experience of those showing no signs of risk.

The Review considered how these protections could be strengthened further. There has been much discussion on the role of investigation into personal financial circumstances as a tool to help identify potentially out of control and harmful gambling. Online gambling is a mass market activity and losses which some people can comfortably afford have the potential to cause significant harm for others.

However, there are continuing cases of operators failing to respond appropriately to gambling spend which would be clearly unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. This has led the regulator and many others to conclude that more prescriptive requirements are needed to strengthen protections for customers and set clear expectations for companies.

The scale of the issues can in some ways be seen through survey data, although the picture is mixed. Combined analysis of the seven major household prevalence studies between and by Regulus Partners and Professor Ian McHale shows that There have also been a number of individual case studies which show clear failures by operators to prevent unaffordable losses, including relatively recently see Box 2 below.

The Gambling Commission published a consultation and call for evidence on issues around customer interaction, including preventing harmful or unaffordable losses, in December In a case which recently led to compliance activity by the Gambling Commission, a customer lost £36, in four days without appropriate financial risk assessment being carried out.

This is above the disposable income the Office for National Statistics estimates was available to the median household for an entire year in £31, As such, the rate and level of spending would have been unaffordable for the vast majority of UK households, and likely to indicate harm.

In a similar compliance case study identified by the Commission, a customer lost approximately £33, in three months without the operator carrying out any financial risk assessment. Compliance staff subsequently examined the information held by the operator on this customer, which suggested they had an annual income of £8, A financial risk model must help protect those vulnerable cohorts for whom even relatively modest gambling losses could be in itself harmful, for example by limiting income available for necessities.

This is particularly relevant in light of the rising cost of living which we recognise is likely to exacerbate issues around financial vulnerability.

Source: YouGov, via Gambling Commission. Equally, while high losses are not necessarily harmful, it holds that the higher the gambling spend particularly in a short period of time , the smaller the proportion of the population that can afford it without negative consequences. A number of studies show higher spending is strongly associated with increased risk of or actual harm.

It is clear that a financial risk model must also pay especially close attention to those who lose unusually large sums relative to both other customers and other likely outgoings. An approach to customer interaction which includes consideration of financial context can allow tailored interventions for the minority who are showing signs of gambling which is likely to be unaffordable to them suggesting loss of control or harm , while allowing those who are not gambling in ways likely to be harmful the freedom to spend their money as they wish.

There has been widespread support for this principle, including from the House of Lords Select Committee, the Social Market Foundation, Parliamentary groups, those with personal experience of harm and the gambling industry, although all have differing interpretations on how the principle should be applied in practice.

Operators are already required to identify customers at risk of harm and take action accordingly. While many operators have already introduced systems, interventions often come too late or not at all, and the measures are inconsistently applied across the sector.

Given that most gamblers are not spending more than they can afford or otherwise experiencing harm, we are mindful that these checks need to be proportionate. As such, our position is that they should only impact a minority of engaged customers, and involve unintrusive checks at moderate levels of spend to help identify particularly financially vulnerable consumers, and more comprehensive although still frictionless assessments for those spending more heavily.

The Gambling Commission will launch a consultation on the proposals for financial risk checks outlined in Box 3 below, with the aim of introducing changes in the licence conditions and codes of practice.

The consultation will also consider how operators should respond to any findings from these checks in concert with their wider assessments of customer risk.

We recognise these proposals have significant implications for collection and handling of sensitive consumer data, raising important questions around privacy, data protection, proportionality, data accuracy, and reciprocal data sharing.

The Data Protection and Digital Information No. While a wide array of evidence submitted to the Commission and this Review has shaped our proposals, three key information points have been important in helping to make sure our proposals are proportionate and properly address the identified risks.

These include: 1 the amounts customers currently spend on gambling; 2 population level information about discretionary income to assess how much money people have available to spend on gambling without being harmed ; and 3 problem gambling rates and other information about harms.

Our intention is that the thresholds and checks based on these considerations will be standard across the online sector and allow for financial risks to be monitored alongside the existing obligations on all operators to prevent harm through considering a range of indicators.

Some operators have argued that financial risk checks based on self certification where customers declare their financial circumstances could be sufficient for the new more prescriptive framework, or at least serve until frictionless checks are developed. While self certification can have a role in customer interaction not least in encouraging customers to reflect on their spending at appropriate moments , it is unlikely to be an adequate basis for a thorough and accurate risk assessment, especially as those being harmed by gambling might be less willing to provide transparent or externally verifiable information.

In our view, the more objective and accurate process outlined below is a more robust basis for assessment. It is for the Gambling Commission to decide whether existing licence conditions and codes of practice are being met by operators, and the inclusion of proposals in this white paper does not in itself create new obligations.

The specific thresholds and proposals below are based on the premise that frictionless checks will facilitate operators gathering the necessary information without disruption to the customer experience, for instance through needing to ask for payslips or bank statements as some operators do now.

New requirements will not come into force until such a time as they are ready. At a moderate loss threshold we propose either £ net loss within a rolling month or £ net loss within a rolling year , operators should conduct a financial vulnerability check, considering the types of open source indicators which many already routinely assess such as County Court Judgements, average postcode affluence, and declared bankruptcies.

These checks should take seconds to process and would be frictionless for the consumer. Net loss means the loss of deposited money with a particular operator, and does not include the loss of restaked winnings from that operator.

If the check raises concerns and no robust evidence to the contrary can be provided, operators will need to respond accordingly. The Commission is currently working with the financial services sector to explore how more detailed checks could work in practice, and the expectation is that the majority would involve credit reference agencies and would not interrupt the customer journey unless the check raises concerns.

We would expect the credit reference agency would be able to provide an overview of pertinent information for the individual customer, for instance an estimate of overall disposable income, rather than providing all the raw data to gambling firms.

Again, a range of operator responses may be appropriate depending on findings and the wider risk profile, including applying limits to an account or ending the customer relationship completely where there are serious concerns. Unusually high losses over a period of weeks or months are also sufficiently indicative of risk to be worthy of thorough investigation.

In line with their advice to this Review , the Commission will consult on a proposed threshold of £2, net loss within a rolling 90 day period to trigger the enhanced checks outlined in section ii above. We additionally propose that Personal Management Licence PML holders should be more clearly accountable for ensuring that these checks are completed at the right time for all customers and that appropriate action is taken based on the findings.

Given these factors and the particular risks associated with remote gambling outlined at the start of this chapter, we think there is a clear case for extra vigilance on the part of operators when a customer aged 18 to 24 spends an unusually large sum gambling online. We believe halving the investigation thresholds in parts ii and iii above i.

to £ net loss in 24 hours and £1, in 90 days for enhanced checks is likely to be justified, and the Commission will explore this further through its forthcoming consultation.

The impact will vary for different operators by the makeup of their player base. Industry and racing stakeholders have raised particular concerns that should checks require documents such as payslips or bank statements to be provided to operators, then most people would refuse and instead gamble elsewhere, including with unlicensed operators.

Their concern is that not only are those being harmed by gambling unlikely to be helped by such a measure, but also that many of those who were not being harmed would nonetheless be driven away from licensed operators.

We recognise this risk, the chilling effect which asking customers for bank documents can have, and that implementing a financial risk-based approach will come with costs to operators. However, we think the impacts are likely to be mitigated by the proposals outlined above which mean no financial risk checks would be required for around three quarters of accounts, most of the checks will be frictionless with little interruption to the customer journey for instance with credit reference or open banking data replacing the need for documents , and the provision of documents by the customer will be only a last resort for the highest spending minority.

Further, it is our view that much of the foregone revenue is likely to be that which was coming from financially vulnerable customers or those who were gambling at significantly unaffordable levels, although this is hard to quantify. Likely impacts are explored in more detail in Annex A of this white paper, and the Commission will give further consideration to impacts, including the potential for any unintended consequences, through its detailed consultation.

The current proposals apply only to the remote sector, but in due course we want to explore the use of frictionless financial risk checks where appropriate in land-based settings to benefit operators and help protect customers. While it is vital that individual operators have effective procedures to protect their customers from harm, online gamblers on average hold 3 gambling accounts and use 1.

Further, almost a fifth of 18 to year-old online gamblers hold five or more accounts. All stakeholders recognise the potential for a so-called single customer view SCV to tackle this risk. However, there were an array of proposals for how this should be implemented.

Gambling Commission casework provides an illustrative example of how a SCV solution could enable more effective harm prevention. In a microcosm of the current system, one licensee allowed a customer to create 14 different accounts across the various domains operated under its licence before being detected.

This customer lost £, across these accounts without any safer gambling checks taking place. Individual licensees are required to have effective oversight over all the brands operating under their licences, but there is currently nothing to prevent a similar outcome for customers with accounts across multiple licensees.

While supportive in principle, industry initially had concerns regarding potential data protection and privacy implications. The live trial which started this month is based on operators sharing information on individuals who have had their accounts closed because of disclosures about suffering serious harm.

As part of the trial, codes of practice are being developed to ensure operators respond appropriately when they are notified of customers in this situation.

Following evaluation later this year, the intention is to expand the system to consider customers who are showing other indicators of harm with one operator which might necessitate coordinated action with other operators.

Given the privacy implications for the majority who gamble with no ill effect, we do not think the creation of such a system including a national database of all gamblers even if anonymised is justified at this time. The government and Commission will review the outcomes of these trials, including whether the right individuals were caught by the system, whether the criteria above identifies enough gamblers at risk of harm, whether operators respond appropriately when information is shared, and whether an effective technical solution has been developed.

If necessary, we will mandate a different or more comprehensive approach to ensure the system meets our objectives in a proportionate and safe way. Once we are satisfied, the Commission will consult on any outstanding details and on requiring all remote operators to integrate with the system.

The intention is for this to be done through the Gambling Commission updating the licence conditions and codes of practice on all remote operators, but if necessary we would consider legislation.

The new requirements will include provisions to ensure any consumer data is effectively protected and only used for the purposes of harm prevention.

We are clear it must never be deployed to further commercial objectives such as through marketing, customer segmentation or identifying winners. The precise impact of data sharing depends on the nature of the system introduced following the trials, but it is intended to benefit a minority of online gamblers at particular risk of harm.

People experiencing problem gambling are more likely to use multiple online accounts and circumvent account restrictions by moving to another operator, so we expect any enhanced protections to have particular relevance for limiting the harm suffered by this group.

There will also be implementation costs for the industry. Given the risk of harm associated with gambling especially to children and the sensitivity of data held on online gambling accounts, it is important that those who are accessing accounts and the facility to gamble are verified as the account holder.

Neon Casino playing cards with poker chips and hologram of digital rings in dark empty scene. As AI reshapes sports gambling, ethical considerations around transparency and addiction are paramount. Ensuring that AI tools in gambling are used responsibly and ethically is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the sport and the welfare of the bettors.

In this new era, sports betting is elevated from a game of luck to a disciplined practice where data, analysis, and strategy play key roles. This AI-infused future of sports gambling, where each bet is backed by data-driven insights, where the thrill of the game is matched by the excitement of smart betting, and where the spirit of sportsmanship is upheld by the power of technology.

This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here. More From Forbes. Mar 18, , pm EDT. Mar 18, , am EDT. Mar 17, , am EDT. Mar 15, , pm EDT. Edit Story. Forbes Innovation AI.

Neil Sahota Contributor Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Neil Sahota is a globally sought after speaker and business advisor. Feb 11, , am EST.

The Future of Online Gambling: Emerging Trends and Technologies

Excluding National Lottery only play, participation trends are broadly flat with some signs of a decline since Figure 1 presents the best available data on long-term trends in gambling participation. Survey methodology varies over time - see labels below.

HSE is for England only. Sources: NatCen, British Gambling Prevalence Survey ; Gambling Behaviour in Great Britain in : NHS Digital, Health Survey for England — Supplementary Analysis for Gambling, The National Lottery has had a broad customer base since its launch in and remains the most popular gambling product see Figure 2 below.

It is regulated under a separate framework from commercial gambling, the National Lottery etc. Act , and is not subject to this Review. Since its launch in , the National Lottery has raised over £47 billion for good causes and its games are associated with among the lowest levels of problem gambling prevalence of any product.

Source: Gambling Commission statistics on participation and problem gambling for the year to December When all forms of gambling are considered together, participation is higher among men Overall, the PHE evidence review found that the highest rates of gambling participation are reported among people who have higher academic qualifications, are employed, are relatively less deprived, and who reported better general psychological health and high life satisfaction.

However, as outlined below, more deprived communities have higher rates of people experiencing problem gambling. The very nature of gambling involves risk and potential losses. It is clear that gambling-related harms can ruin lives, wreck families, and damage communities, with issues including mental health and relationship problems, debts that cannot be repaid, crime, or even suicide in extreme cases.

Gambling harm is often a result of the interplay between individual susceptibility, environmental factors, the products themselves and operator actions. However, as the PHE evidence review found, gambling and the associated harms are less well understood and researched than some other addictions such as alcohol misuse, and much of the available evidence is limited or varying in quality.

Firstly, the best available evidence suggests that the large majority of people who gamble suffer no ill effects. Most gamblers report having never experienced any of the 9 indicators of harm in the Problem Gambling Severity Index PGSI screen as measured in the questions below:.

have people criticised your betting or told you that you had a gambling problem, regardless of whether or not you thought it was true?

However, a small proportion do suffer significant harm as a result of gambling, and the PHE evidence review included a detailed quantitative analysis on this issue.

Sources: NatCen, British Gambling Prevalence Survey ; Gambling Behaviour in Great Britain in , NHS Digital, Health Survey for England — Supplementary Analysis for Gambling, However, this is based on smaller sample sizes than the data in Figure 3 and on the PGSI mini screen rather than all 9 questions above.

Figures may also have been impacted by the recent fall in gambling participation or other behaviour changes linked to the coronavirus COVID pandemic, including the unavailability of some gambling activities.

In a recent pilot for a new approach to collecting data on population problem gambling rates , the Commission found the sample surveyed had a higher problem gambling prevalence rate of 1. There is significant detail underneath this population problem gambling rate which the PHE review considered.

In particular, it found men were more likely to be experiencing problem gambling than women and that 16 to year-olds had the highest average PGSI score of any age group.

There are also significant variations in the rates of problem gambling associated with each product, but consistent evidence that gambling online and the use of multiple gambling products are associated with higher PGSI scores.

However, there are limitations to all of these sources including incomplete coverage and lack of detailed information.

Harmful gambling is strongly correlated with and likely to exacerbate existing health disparities. There is a higher prevalence of problem gambling among people with poor health, low life satisfaction and wellbeing scores, and the problem gambling rate is higher among more deprived groups than less deprived groups.

It is also important to recognise that problems with gambling can be one of a number of harms individuals suffer simultaneously; for instance while gambling addiction can impact mental health and wellbeing, poor mental health and heavy alcohol use are commonly suffered alongside gambling harms.

Due to a lack of longitudinal evidence the PHE report did not establish causal relationships with these other health harms, or in the case of mental health issues, found that relationships appeared to go in both directions.

This includes approximately 1. Alongside the harm to the individual, gambling-related harms can have negative impacts on other people and wider communities. There are also benefits to gambling which should be weighed in decision making, although they do not negate the need to prevent gambling-related harm.

While the risks vary by product and other factors, gambling participation is generally not in itself harmful and may even be positive. Gambling can be sociable, can help tackle loneliness and isolation, can enhance the enjoyment of other activities, and can be a valuable pastime in its own right, although quantifying these benefits is inherently difficult.

There are also economic benefits to having a well regulated industry to service this demand. The sector pays approximately £2 billion per year to the government in duties excluding Lottery Duty , accounted for £5. While many gambling companies do operate overseas hubs, the jobs in this country are geographically dispersed, with hubs of high skill work in areas like Stoke-on-Trent and Leeds.

The gambling sector also contributes significantly to other industries, including sport, advertising and racing. Horse racing in particular has a mutually beneficial relationship with betting, and the levy paid by bookmakers on their racing derived revenue contributes around £ million a year to support the sport.

Gambling can also contribute to tourism, for instance to seaside towns across the country, or high-end casinos attracting wealthy overseas visitors who spend across a number of other sectors while in this country. Additionally, some gambling products enable charities and other non-commercial organisations such as sports clubs to raise valuable funds.

The evidence suggests that particular elements and products of online gambling are associated with an elevated risk of harm. This chapter proposes a range of targeted interventions:.

This will target three key risks identified by the Gambling Commission in its casework: binge gambling, significant unaffordable losses over time and financially vulnerable customers. In general, this government agrees with the principle that people should be free to spend their money how they see fit, so we propose a targeted system of financial risk checks that is proportionate to the risk of harm occurring.

Assessments should start with unintrusive checks at moderate levels of spend we propose £ net loss within a month or £ within a year , and if necessary escalate to checks which are more detailed but still frictionless at higher loss levels where the risks are greater we propose £1, loss within a day or £2, within 90 days.

We also propose that the triggers for enhanced checks should be lower for those aged 18 to Once a suitably effective and secure platform is in place, the Gambling Commission will consult on making data sharing on high risk customers mandatory for all remote operators.

Individual operators can take steps to prevent harm on their own platform, but people suffering gambling harms often hold multiple accounts. While account verification is on the whole effective, there are difficulties in matching payment details to the account holder. This creates compliance risks and potential harms for those experiencing problem gambling and affected others.

With new technologies and payment regulations now in place, the Commission will work with others to consider what more can be done to reduce this risk. The Gambling Commission will review and consult on updating design rules for online products, building on its recent work on online slots to consider features like speed of play which can exacerbate intensity and risk.

Products which are safer by design will help prevent harm at source and reduce the reliance on reactive harm detection systems. We propose to introduce a maximum stake limit for online slots games of between £2 and £15, subject to consultation.

We will also consult on measures to give greater protections for 18 to year-olds who the evidence suggests may be a particularly vulnerable cohort. This will include options of a £2 limit per stake; a £4 limit per stake; or an approach based on individual risk. Tools like deposit limits can help people gamble within their means, but may be underused and not widely optimised for harm prevention.

Informed by insights from behavioural science, the Gambling Commission will explore making these tools mandatory for players to use or opt-out rather than opt-in, as well as other changes to reduce friction and help people gamble safely before any problems arise.

While GAMSTOP is the principal means of online self-exclusion, we welcome that banks and payment providers offer opt-in gambling transaction blocks. The gambling industry should work with financial service firms to enable the blocks to be extended to other payment methods like bank transfers.

Online operators use data to identify and restrict accounts in response to suspected fraudulent activity and for commercial reasons for example customers betting too successfully. It is important that customers are made aware of the circumstances in which such restrictions may be applied and provided with explanations where it does occur.

Operators sometimes put artificial behavioural barriers in the way of consumers doing what they want. Activities such as withdrawing winnings, closing accounts and accessing important information should be made as frictionless as possible.

Behavioural barriers and friction should only be used to keep customers safe rather than impede them from taking decisions. While the risks are not fundamental to such arrangements and licensees are rightly held to account, there have been examples of non-compliance associated with these arrangements.

The Gambling Commission will consolidate and reinforce expectations for operators on contracting with third parties, including white labels. Prize draws and competitions have been able to grow significantly and advertise widely in the digital age.

These competitions, unlike lotteries, are not regulated. This is because they offer a free entry route for instance via ordinary post or have a skill-based element.

We propose to explore the potential for regulating the largest competitions of this type to introduce appropriate controls around player protection and, where applicable, returns to good causes, and to improve transparency.

The online gambling landscape now is very different to the one which existed in Online gambling overtook land-based gambling by GGY — the total value of funds staked minus any winnings or prizes paid out — in September and continues to grow.

In the year to December , This has largely been driven by a channel shift from land-based gambling, where participation has fallen from While the lasting impacts of the COVID pandemic remain to be seen, it seems likely that the shift towards online participation, as we have seen in many other sectors, will continue.

Perhaps more significant change has occurred underneath this wider channel shift, as new technologies have also reshaped where, when and how people gamble online. Online gamblers can now gamble at any time and in any location they choose, and while online gambling from home remains the most popular choice, in 1 in 5 had done so outside the home.

Technological change has also enabled innovation in both the betting and gaming product offer. For betting, this has predominantly entailed increased betting opportunities. Online gaming products too have changed as the sector has matured, with rapid, stimulating and intense random number generator powered games like online slots becoming increasingly popular and making up a larger portion of operator profits over time.

Further change is inevitable. According to the Health Survey for England , excluding National Lottery draws, 4.

These trends have also been identified in evidence highlighted by PHE. Some academics, treatment providers and groups with personal experience have also argued the environment of online gambling and certain structural characteristics of online products are inherently risky for all customers, and particularly for those who are otherwise vulnerable.

We also received evidence from charities that people facing challenges like social isolation or cognitive dysfunction such as following a brain injury could be particularly attracted to remote gambling opportunities and fail to understand or properly assess the risks.

However, the online environment also provides many opportunities to make sure people are gambling safely. Equally, customers can be easily empowered with a range of tools like financial limits which are inherently harder to implement offline. Our vision for remote gambling is that the risks are mitigated, and that we maximise the use of technology and data to protect people in a targeted way at all stages of the customer journey.

The proposals outlined will deliver:. This section takes stock of the existing protections in place for online gamblers to contextualise the proposals outlined later in this chapter. Online gambling is a fully regulated sector, and the rules governing it are largely set out in licence conditions or technical standards on remote operators rather than in statute.

This enables the requirements to be more detailed and to be amended more quickly over time to respond to technological change or new risks to consumers. While the use of these tools by customers is voluntary and operators are afforded a degree of discretion around how they are designed, there are requirements attached to certain tools.

For example, the option to set a deposit limit must be available to all customers from when they first open an account or deposit funds, and increasing a deposit limit must take at least 24 hours to come into effect.

While most gambling management tools are provided to help customers gamble safely, all operators must also offer self-exclusion facilities to help those who wish to stop gambling altogether.

In March , it became mandatory for licensed operators to sign up to GAMSTOP, the multi-operator self-exclusion scheme. Other sectors and non-profit organisations can also help consumers manage their gambling.

Similar tools are increasingly available from other payment providers like PayPal. Services such as Gamban and BetBlocker also allow consumers to block access to gambling apps and websites on internet devices.

When used in conjunction with self-exclusion, payment and website blocks can add a further layer of protection for people recovering from gambling harm. However, while these tools are helpful for many online gamblers, they are not enough to fully mitigate the risks, so there are also a range of obligations on operators to identify and prevent gambling-related harm.

Where needed, the actions taken must include encouraging or requiring a player to set limits, actively signposting to support services, suspending marketing in cases where there are strong indicators of harm, and unilaterally suspending or closing accounts.

Source: Gambling Commission, Remote Customer Interaction Guidance. In addition, the regulator also sets the Remote Technical Standards which outline the security and technical standards for remote gambling operations.

As well as specifying how certain account level protections should function, these include specific rules for online gambling product design, aimed at making sure games operate in a socially responsible manner and do not encourage potentially harmful gambling activity.

In February , the Gambling Commission announced revised standards for online slot games to make them safer by design.

These mirror many of the existing controls on gaming machines and tackle some of the features which exacerbate the risk of harm to gamblers; for example, increasing the intensity of play or encouraging a false perception of the game, such as feeling in control of the game outcome or believing a game is due a payout.

Finally, there is also a range of other universal controls to make the online gambling experience safer, largely imposed through licence conditions on gambling operators.

For example, there are strong age verification measures for setting up accounts to prevent children gambling, reverse withdrawals have been banned since October building on guidance issued in May , and the use of credit cards to gamble online was banned in April , which the evidence suggests has been useful in preventing harm.

Key evidence as it relates to our policy proposals is discussed in more detail below, but a number of overarching themes emerged across the submissions. Firstly, there was significant discussion of the existing controls and the majority including industry stakeholders presented evidence that current protections could and should be further improved.

Operator responses largely put this in the context of the recent changes which have been introduced through voluntary industry codes or Gambling Commission mandated action. For instance, many discussed the significant changes to their harm detection systems since the Commission updated its customer interaction requirements and guidance in July , and others mentioned measures like the ban on credit cards in April Most industry submissions pointed to recent Gambling Commission data which has since been updated which suggests a decline in the population problem gambling rate, as evidence that the incremental changes are having the desired effect.

They therefore make the case for continued changes, but cautious ones which fully evaluate the spate of recent measures before proceeding. Conversely, many outside the industry submitted evidence on the harms which individuals had suffered in spite of the existing controls, which they argued were therefore ineffective.

In their view, significant new controls are needed to curb the risk of harm presented by certain features of online gambling including industry practices. A number of individuals submitted evidence including case studies which showed that signs of harm can be missed and that individuals are permitted and occasionally encouraged to continue gambling.

To support this position, many respondents cited the Patterns of Play interim report. These individuals may not have been spending more than they could afford, but many respondents felt operators should have been doing more to check. Some contended the models can now even identify and prevent harm before it occurs, but this is hard to verify.

Operators broadly argued in favour of these tailored controls, rather than measures which may limit the enjoyment of gambling for the majority of players who suffer no ill effects and may if curtailed in their gambling turn to unlicensed operators.

How gambling operators use the data available to them was also covered by campaign and consumer groups, with some levelling specific criticisms regarding data governance and processing.

In addition to failing to identify those suffering harm, respondents identified wider practices which might be detrimental to consumers, such as the profiling of customers and the restriction of winning accounts. This was part of a broader sentiment across some respondents that consumers needed to be better empowered in their dealings with remote gambling products and companies.

In addition to submissions to the call for evidence, we also received advice from the Gambling Commission , which emphasised the importance of measures to prevent harm throughout the remote customer journey, and committed to build on recent work to improve protections.

Most online gamblers have relatively modest losses. This suggests most customers do not spend above levels which would be usual in other leisure sectors, although personal circumstances on whether these losses are acceptable will vary. This distribution means that operator revenue is predominantly derived from a relatively small cohort of high spending customers.

Some submissions pointed out that a reliance on a high spending minority is not unusual in other sectors such as air travel and that higher than average spending on gambling is not in itself evidence of harm as discretionary income varies significantly across individuals. Nonetheless, this is a potentially concerning pattern in a sector with a known addiction risk, and where a key manifestation of that addiction is high spending.

A recent survey of UK gamblers estimated that moderate-risk and problem gamblers collectively comprising While there are real complexities that make it difficult to pinpoint a precise figure, the weight of the evidence suggests that those being harmed by gambling are overrepresented among those with high gambling spend.

Source: Natcen Patterns of Play Slide The obligations on remote operators to monitor account activity and intervene where individuals display signs of potential harm are a cornerstone of the current package of protections online.

This approach allows tailored interventions to prevent harm without interrupting the experience of those showing no signs of risk. The Review considered how these protections could be strengthened further.

There has been much discussion on the role of investigation into personal financial circumstances as a tool to help identify potentially out of control and harmful gambling. Online gambling is a mass market activity and losses which some people can comfortably afford have the potential to cause significant harm for others.

However, there are continuing cases of operators failing to respond appropriately to gambling spend which would be clearly unaffordable for the vast majority of the population.

This has led the regulator and many others to conclude that more prescriptive requirements are needed to strengthen protections for customers and set clear expectations for companies. The scale of the issues can in some ways be seen through survey data, although the picture is mixed.

Combined analysis of the seven major household prevalence studies between and by Regulus Partners and Professor Ian McHale shows that There have also been a number of individual case studies which show clear failures by operators to prevent unaffordable losses, including relatively recently see Box 2 below.

The Gambling Commission published a consultation and call for evidence on issues around customer interaction, including preventing harmful or unaffordable losses, in December In a case which recently led to compliance activity by the Gambling Commission, a customer lost £36, in four days without appropriate financial risk assessment being carried out.

This is above the disposable income the Office for National Statistics estimates was available to the median household for an entire year in £31, As such, the rate and level of spending would have been unaffordable for the vast majority of UK households, and likely to indicate harm.

In a similar compliance case study identified by the Commission, a customer lost approximately £33, in three months without the operator carrying out any financial risk assessment. Compliance staff subsequently examined the information held by the operator on this customer, which suggested they had an annual income of £8, A financial risk model must help protect those vulnerable cohorts for whom even relatively modest gambling losses could be in itself harmful, for example by limiting income available for necessities.

This is particularly relevant in light of the rising cost of living which we recognise is likely to exacerbate issues around financial vulnerability. Source: YouGov, via Gambling Commission.

Equally, while high losses are not necessarily harmful, it holds that the higher the gambling spend particularly in a short period of time , the smaller the proportion of the population that can afford it without negative consequences.

A number of studies show higher spending is strongly associated with increased risk of or actual harm. It is clear that a financial risk model must also pay especially close attention to those who lose unusually large sums relative to both other customers and other likely outgoings.

An approach to customer interaction which includes consideration of financial context can allow tailored interventions for the minority who are showing signs of gambling which is likely to be unaffordable to them suggesting loss of control or harm , while allowing those who are not gambling in ways likely to be harmful the freedom to spend their money as they wish.

There has been widespread support for this principle, including from the House of Lords Select Committee, the Social Market Foundation, Parliamentary groups, those with personal experience of harm and the gambling industry, although all have differing interpretations on how the principle should be applied in practice.

Operators are already required to identify customers at risk of harm and take action accordingly. While many operators have already introduced systems, interventions often come too late or not at all, and the measures are inconsistently applied across the sector. Given that most gamblers are not spending more than they can afford or otherwise experiencing harm, we are mindful that these checks need to be proportionate.

As such, our position is that they should only impact a minority of engaged customers, and involve unintrusive checks at moderate levels of spend to help identify particularly financially vulnerable consumers, and more comprehensive although still frictionless assessments for those spending more heavily.

The Gambling Commission will launch a consultation on the proposals for financial risk checks outlined in Box 3 below, with the aim of introducing changes in the licence conditions and codes of practice.

The consultation will also consider how operators should respond to any findings from these checks in concert with their wider assessments of customer risk. We recognise these proposals have significant implications for collection and handling of sensitive consumer data, raising important questions around privacy, data protection, proportionality, data accuracy, and reciprocal data sharing.

The Data Protection and Digital Information No. While a wide array of evidence submitted to the Commission and this Review has shaped our proposals, three key information points have been important in helping to make sure our proposals are proportionate and properly address the identified risks.

These include: 1 the amounts customers currently spend on gambling; 2 population level information about discretionary income to assess how much money people have available to spend on gambling without being harmed ; and 3 problem gambling rates and other information about harms. Our intention is that the thresholds and checks based on these considerations will be standard across the online sector and allow for financial risks to be monitored alongside the existing obligations on all operators to prevent harm through considering a range of indicators.

Some operators have argued that financial risk checks based on self certification where customers declare their financial circumstances could be sufficient for the new more prescriptive framework, or at least serve until frictionless checks are developed.

While self certification can have a role in customer interaction not least in encouraging customers to reflect on their spending at appropriate moments , it is unlikely to be an adequate basis for a thorough and accurate risk assessment, especially as those being harmed by gambling might be less willing to provide transparent or externally verifiable information.

In our view, the more objective and accurate process outlined below is a more robust basis for assessment. It is for the Gambling Commission to decide whether existing licence conditions and codes of practice are being met by operators, and the inclusion of proposals in this white paper does not in itself create new obligations.

The specific thresholds and proposals below are based on the premise that frictionless checks will facilitate operators gathering the necessary information without disruption to the customer experience, for instance through needing to ask for payslips or bank statements as some operators do now.

New requirements will not come into force until such a time as they are ready. At a moderate loss threshold we propose either £ net loss within a rolling month or £ net loss within a rolling year , operators should conduct a financial vulnerability check, considering the types of open source indicators which many already routinely assess such as County Court Judgements, average postcode affluence, and declared bankruptcies.

These checks should take seconds to process and would be frictionless for the consumer. Net loss means the loss of deposited money with a particular operator, and does not include the loss of restaked winnings from that operator. If the check raises concerns and no robust evidence to the contrary can be provided, operators will need to respond accordingly.

The Commission is currently working with the financial services sector to explore how more detailed checks could work in practice, and the expectation is that the majority would involve credit reference agencies and would not interrupt the customer journey unless the check raises concerns.

We would expect the credit reference agency would be able to provide an overview of pertinent information for the individual customer, for instance an estimate of overall disposable income, rather than providing all the raw data to gambling firms.

Again, a range of operator responses may be appropriate depending on findings and the wider risk profile, including applying limits to an account or ending the customer relationship completely where there are serious concerns. Unusually high losses over a period of weeks or months are also sufficiently indicative of risk to be worthy of thorough investigation.

In line with their advice to this Review , the Commission will consult on a proposed threshold of £2, net loss within a rolling 90 day period to trigger the enhanced checks outlined in section ii above. We additionally propose that Personal Management Licence PML holders should be more clearly accountable for ensuring that these checks are completed at the right time for all customers and that appropriate action is taken based on the findings.

Given these factors and the particular risks associated with remote gambling outlined at the start of this chapter, we think there is a clear case for extra vigilance on the part of operators when a customer aged 18 to 24 spends an unusually large sum gambling online.

We believe halving the investigation thresholds in parts ii and iii above i. to £ net loss in 24 hours and £1, in 90 days for enhanced checks is likely to be justified, and the Commission will explore this further through its forthcoming consultation.

The impact will vary for different operators by the makeup of their player base. Industry and racing stakeholders have raised particular concerns that should checks require documents such as payslips or bank statements to be provided to operators, then most people would refuse and instead gamble elsewhere, including with unlicensed operators.

Their concern is that not only are those being harmed by gambling unlikely to be helped by such a measure, but also that many of those who were not being harmed would nonetheless be driven away from licensed operators.

We recognise this risk, the chilling effect which asking customers for bank documents can have, and that implementing a financial risk-based approach will come with costs to operators. However, we think the impacts are likely to be mitigated by the proposals outlined above which mean no financial risk checks would be required for around three quarters of accounts, most of the checks will be frictionless with little interruption to the customer journey for instance with credit reference or open banking data replacing the need for documents , and the provision of documents by the customer will be only a last resort for the highest spending minority.

Further, it is our view that much of the foregone revenue is likely to be that which was coming from financially vulnerable customers or those who were gambling at significantly unaffordable levels, although this is hard to quantify. Likely impacts are explored in more detail in Annex A of this white paper, and the Commission will give further consideration to impacts, including the potential for any unintended consequences, through its detailed consultation.

The current proposals apply only to the remote sector, but in due course we want to explore the use of frictionless financial risk checks where appropriate in land-based settings to benefit operators and help protect customers.

While it is vital that individual operators have effective procedures to protect their customers from harm, online gamblers on average hold 3 gambling accounts and use 1.

Further, almost a fifth of 18 to year-old online gamblers hold five or more accounts. All stakeholders recognise the potential for a so-called single customer view SCV to tackle this risk. However, there were an array of proposals for how this should be implemented.

Gambling Commission casework provides an illustrative example of how a SCV solution could enable more effective harm prevention. In a microcosm of the current system, one licensee allowed a customer to create 14 different accounts across the various domains operated under its licence before being detected.

This customer lost £, across these accounts without any safer gambling checks taking place. Individual licensees are required to have effective oversight over all the brands operating under their licences, but there is currently nothing to prevent a similar outcome for customers with accounts across multiple licensees.

While supportive in principle, industry initially had concerns regarding potential data protection and privacy implications. The live trial which started this month is based on operators sharing information on individuals who have had their accounts closed because of disclosures about suffering serious harm.

As part of the trial, codes of practice are being developed to ensure operators respond appropriately when they are notified of customers in this situation. Following evaluation later this year, the intention is to expand the system to consider customers who are showing other indicators of harm with one operator which might necessitate coordinated action with other operators.

Given the privacy implications for the majority who gamble with no ill effect, we do not think the creation of such a system including a national database of all gamblers even if anonymised is justified at this time.

The government and Commission will review the outcomes of these trials, including whether the right individuals were caught by the system, whether the criteria above identifies enough gamblers at risk of harm, whether operators respond appropriately when information is shared, and whether an effective technical solution has been developed.

If necessary, we will mandate a different or more comprehensive approach to ensure the system meets our objectives in a proportionate and safe way.

Once we are satisfied, the Commission will consult on any outstanding details and on requiring all remote operators to integrate with the system. The intention is for this to be done through the Gambling Commission updating the licence conditions and codes of practice on all remote operators, but if necessary we would consider legislation.

The new requirements will include provisions to ensure any consumer data is effectively protected and only used for the purposes of harm prevention. We are clear it must never be deployed to further commercial objectives such as through marketing, customer segmentation or identifying winners.

The precise impact of data sharing depends on the nature of the system introduced following the trials, but it is intended to benefit a minority of online gamblers at particular risk of harm.

People experiencing problem gambling are more likely to use multiple online accounts and circumvent account restrictions by moving to another operator, so we expect any enhanced protections to have particular relevance for limiting the harm suffered by this group.

There will also be implementation costs for the industry. Given the risk of harm associated with gambling especially to children and the sensitivity of data held on online gambling accounts, it is important that those who are accessing accounts and the facility to gamble are verified as the account holder.

Gambling Commission research shows online gambling is experienced by fewer 11 to year-olds than other forms of gambling. We see great potential in the provision of digital identity technologies to drive further progress in this area and for a range of other age restricted products.

The government is working to establish a common baseline standard that assures trustworthy and consistent identity checks and attributes sharing and enables interoperability of digital identity technologies.

In the meantime, there are other controls which can be explored. This gives rise to at least two distinct issues, each presenting risks:. The first leaves open the possibility for individuals to continue gambling when their legitimate account has been restricted, either by the gambler themselves for instance because of self-exclusion or pre-commitment tools , or by the operator for instance because of commercial or safer gambling risks.

Where restrictions are to safeguard against harm, any circumvention by the customer may exacerbate the risk. There may also be regulatory risks in several critical areas, including financial risk assessments, anti-money laundering compliance, and the prevention of illegal underage gambling.

We recognise that identity theft or stealing funds is a criminal matter, and the evidence we received, including from a police organisation, demonstrated the significant harm this can and does inflict on both the gambler and affected others. Safeguarding against this risk through regulatory change will benefit both parties and reduce the burden on public services.

These risks have been recognised by the regulator for some time. Despite support among consumers and some licensees, the proposal was not technically feasible at the time, since online retailers could not access verified cardholder details when processing a payment.

SCA has now come fully into force, so card-based e-commerce transactions that are non-compliant should now be declined. With new payment regulations now in force, the Commission can reassess this issue and determine whether new requirements for licensees might be justified to address the risks identified above.

Given the variety and technical complexity of the payments sector, the Commission will work with relevant organisations to help understand the issue and assess whether any new requirements are appropriate. The Commission will consult before introducing any new controls it considers may be justified.

All operators should continually explore how they can further mitigate these risks through new technologies or procedures.

For instance, we welcome the steps taken by some operators to introduce enhanced security measures, such as multi-factor authentication.

This would reduce the opportunity for those experiencing gambling problems to exacerbate harm by avoiding safer gambling controls and limit the scope for potential harm to affected others. For operators, clearer obligations and greater confidence in the identity of the account user will support more effective prevention of harm, while closing off compliance risks around the prevention of illegal underage gambling and anti-money laundering due diligence.

Any future Gambling Commission consultation will consider the risk of unintended consequences. While we are confident that the data-driven system of account level protections has been improved and can be improved further, we also note that it is primarily reactive; interventions are largely only triggered when at least some signs of potentially concerning gambling behaviour have been detected.

We therefore see merit in reducing the reliance on account-based harm reduction systems through universal measures to make the online gambling environment safer for all participants, with a particular focus on the products themselves and how they are designed.

In October , the Gambling Commission introduced new rules specifically for online slot games to limit certain features associated with increased risk of harmful play.

For example, the rules limited slot play speed to 2. Slots must also display the money and time spent during a session. Early evidence suggests these controls are having a positive impact on consumer behaviour.

The Gambling Commission will publish an assessment of the key impacts on consumer behaviour in spring In the meantime, the Betting and Gaming Council BGC has provided us with an informal evaluation of some of the measures which were voluntarily adopted by most operators in September There were also notable reductions in the average session length, spins per session, and proportion of sessions lasting over 1 hour.

These reported indicators cannot be used to directly infer reductions in harm, but they do suggest a moderation in play brought about by the changes.

There are currently no comparably specific controls on other online products. This disparity is unlikely to be commensurate with the risk which other products, particularly some casino games, pose to consumers.

For example, online roulette shares some structural similarities with online slots in being a random number generator casino game which allows for relatively rapid, intense and repetitive play.

Most respondents to the call for evidence discussed product controls in the context of limits on structural characteristics, for example limits on stake and speed of play.

Some industry respondents viewed these as poorly targeted as they would apply to all consumers, including those not experiencing harm, so advocated for a greater emphasis on protections targeted towards individual accounts showing signs of risk.

However, as one think tank pointed out, reasonable minimum standards are in fact a targeted intervention as they prevent designedly harmful or risky play, but do not impact how most people actually use online products.

Some stakeholders proposed an expanded pre-release product testing regime where each new game would be tested to appraise its potential to cause harm.

We also need to consider the regulatory costs associated with individual testing of every product against potentially dozens of parameters. One major operator reportedly introduced over 6, new games in a 6 year period, and there are over 20, existing products. As most features associated with an increased risk of harmful play are consistent across multiple products, these standards should be agnostic towards game type where possible, but carve-outs or bespoke provisions may occasionally be necessary.

This will avoid duplicating the earlier work on online slot design, reduce unnecessary complexity in our regulatory framework and retain flexibility for future product innovations while also efficiently curtailing harmful game design innovations.

The Gambling Commission will therefore build on its work on online slot design rules and consider the wider design codes for other online products. For example, the Commission will consider limits on speed of play to reduce immersiveness and rapid losses, intensifying features such as simultaneous play of multiple games could be removed, and real time information on session losses and time played could be mandated.

The Commission will now develop the details and consult on specific updates to the remote technical standards. Longer-term, Gambling Commission changes to the prevalence and participation methodology will provide a more detailed assessment of problem gambling trends across the online slot player cohort to support evaluation.

However, the new rules will strive to make games intrinsically safer across the sector, while leaving space for operators to continue innovating and developing games which customers want to play.

The Commission will of course continue to monitor the impact of changes post-implementation, and could make further updates if needed. We expect these changes will come with costs to the sector.

Firstly, there will be development costs associated with the removal of certain features or the complete removal of games which cannot be made to comply with any new standards.

Slower and less intense games are also likely to generate less revenue than the current games subject to the precise rule change , but in our view they will make the gambling product offer more sustainable rather than relying on potentially harmful practices to keep customers engaged.

The Commission will give further consideration to impact through its consultation. In addition to the structural characteristics discussed above, stake size can be a key determinant of losses and gambling-related harm.

There are currently no statutory limits on the amount people can stake on any online products. This is in contrast to the land-based sector, where electronic gaming machines offering games which are otherwise similar to some online gaming products are subject to stake and prize limits set out in legislation.

There are no statutory stake limits on other forms of in-person gambling such as casino table games or over the counter betting. As outlined above, the Commission will review the existing disparities in product controls between slots and non-slot products.

However, a case has been made that the unlimited stakes on online slots play are particularly problematic due to the nature of slots play and its increasing popularity as seen in the monthly operator data collected by the Gambling Commission since the start of the COVID pandemic.

Source: Gambling Commission Part 2 - Hot States and Binge Gambling. There is also more direct evidence of an association between online slots and harm.

Given this evidence of particular risk, there was significant discussion in responses to our call for evidence on the case for a stake limit on online slots.

Industry responses were mixed, and many challenged the link between stake levels and harm. Among respondents outside of industry, there was a broad consensus that stake limits on slots are needed. Many proposed a fixed limit of £2 to align with the maximum stake for B2 and B3 machines.

However, some identified B1 machines in casinos £5 stake limit as a more relevant comparison to online slots. While slots were the primary concern, some campaign groups, treatment providers and experts by experience felt limits were needed more broadly. This mainly extended to random number-generated casino games, but a few submissions argued that betting should also be included.

To support our consideration of this issue, the Gambling Commission issued a data request to industry in April to understand real world play with online slots. Equally, high-value stakes are very rare, with stakes in excess of £10, £20 and £50, respectively comprising 0.

However, some operators pointed out that while the spins at higher levels are relatively uncommon, individual players often vary their stakes. The April data request particularly sought to understand the association between staking behaviour and harm measured through operator assigned risk score as the best available proxy — see Figure 8 below.

Nonetheless, accounts flagged as high and medium risk account for a greater proportion of stakes in higher value staking bands.

For example, high and medium risk accounts placed However, this overrepresentation is not necessarily evidence of high stakes causing harm. Account risk scores are determined by activities across products, not just online slots. Finally, the operators considered in this data request all have different approaches to ascribing risk scores, so findings will vary by operator.

Operators which heavily weight their risk score by stake size were deliberately excluded from the analysis to avoid giving a false impression of a positive linear correlation.

Source: Gambling Commission Data request April While the evidence of a clear causative relationship is limited, there is sufficient evidence of an association between higher staking on slots and identified risks of harm to justify action on a precautionary basis as part of the wider package of protections.

The Gambling Commission also advises the government pursue a stake limit for online slots products. We saw evidence that some online slot games currently permit stakes up to £ per 2. While online slot stakes at this level are rare, we consider that the opportunity to lose up to £ every 2.

When stakes up to £ were permitted on B2 gaming machines, research showed that problem gamblers were disproportionately placing higher stakes and used the maximum stake more frequently.

NFTs are used to personalise game assets and avatars, slot machine skins, table skins, casino chips, decks of cards, and collectibles. We are on track to file the utility patent by Q2 of this year. We know of the undisputable potential of blockchain and cryptocurrencies in various other industries, but the possibilities in the online gambling sector are also becoming increasingly clear.

Crypto owes its popularity to the fact that it enables anonymous, secure, and easy deposits, withdrawals, and gameplay. The fact that it minimises the chances of being hacked or confronted with identity theft also makes customers feel more at ease when gambling online.

While traditional payments will still be part of the options for many online gambling sites, cryptocurrencies are increasingly replacing these as more and more online casino operators are realising the importance of security and transparency.

One of the biggest advantages of using crypto for online gambling is complete anonymity. This is very convenient for people from areas where gambling is restricted or outlawed, as it enables them to access online casinos as well.

Unlike traditional online casinos, the metaverse can offer users a very authentic-feeling digital representation of the real casino experience using virtual reality technology.

Users can represent themselves with a unique avatar, the behaviour of which they can control just like they control their own conduct in the real world. As already mentioned — unlike traditional online casinos, the metaverse can offer users a very authentic-feeling digital representation of the real casino experience using virtual reality technology.

To represent themselves, users can use a unique avatar, the behaviour of which they can control just like they control their own conduct in the real world. Instead, players convert their real-world currency into one of the cryptocurrencies that are accepted in the metaverse and deposit funds using a crypto wallet.

Players can, however, exchange the cryptocurrencies and NFTs that they win for traditional currencies. Playing online casino games in the metaverse has various benefits.

Not only does it provide much more immersive experiences and interactions compared to online gambling platforms, metaverse casinos also offer players higher levels of security and transparency.

And without any third parties required to verify transactions, deposits and withdrawals can be processed virtually instantly. One example of a metaverse casino is the ICE Poker casino, created by Decentral Games, where avatars dressed in streetwear and sunglasses hover around the poker tables.

More than , gamblers meet on this virtual casino platform on a monthly basis. All the profits generated from playing at this metaverse casino go to the players and are stored on the blockchain.

Winners and losers can also be verified on the blockchain, which, in terms of trust and transparency, is a huge benefit of metaverse gambling. The online casino landscape has seen significant changes over the past few years, with newer, more innovative platforms being launched almost on a monthly basis.

Advanced casino technology has also ushered in mobile gaming, enabling players to enjoy their favourite games while running errands or commuting to work. VR, AR, and MR enable a far greater immersive, 3D online gambling experience than ever before, and it may not be too long before we can play poker or blackjack against an AI version of actual poker or blackjack legends.

Renowned keynote speaker Richard van Hooijdonk offers inspiring lectures on world trends, technology, and marketing. Top technology trends shaping the future of online gambling.

Online gambling is becoming more immersive, more secure, and increasingly competitive, affecting the way we play, interact with games and other players, and the types of devices we use. Industries: Entertainment.

The magic of data science is… personalisation Improving the gambling experience with VR and AR Cryptocurrencies are set to dominate the online gambling sector Gambling in the metaverse Online gambling has seen spectacular growth in the past two decades, with virtual reality casinos, live dealers, and provably fair and secure online gambling experiences increasingly becoming the norm, rather than the exception.

Improving the gambling experience with VR and AR In the past ten years, the casino industry has seen tremendous changes. Gambling in the metaverse As already mentioned — unlike traditional online casinos, the metaverse can offer users a very authentic-feeling digital representation of the real casino experience using virtual reality technology.

Closing thoughts The online casino landscape has seen significant changes over the past few years, with newer, more innovative platforms being launched almost on a monthly basis.

They bring competitive advantages, increase the effectiveness of operations, make our daily lives more efficient, improve healthcare, and significantly change the landscape and beyond.

DOWNLOAD THIS FREE E-BOOK. Free trendservice. Receive the latest insights, research material, e-books, white papers and articles from our research team every month, for free! More interesting blogs. November 23, Innovative technologies enhancing the World Cup experience.

Approacj betting Suerte y Riesgo mobile phones gamb,ing football basketball gamnling baseball. In the Suerte y Riesgo arena of sports gambling, a Futuristic gambling approach gambing unfolding - Keno para principiantes powered by artificial intelligence AI. This technological marvel is gamboing the art of sports betting from a game of chance into a symphony of data-driven precision. Let us explore the burgeoning world where AI intersects with sports gambling, turning bettors from mere spectators into strategic players in a game where data, algorithms, and probabilities redefine the odds. Sports gambling, a realm where intuition, experience, and sometimes sheer luck have traditionally dictated the rules, is undergoing a transformative shift.

Author: Nekasa

0 thoughts on “Futuristic gambling approach

Leave a comment

Yours email will be published. Important fields a marked *

Design by ThemesDNA.com