July’s blog update from the Gambling Commission offers long overdue transparency on the scale and style of account restrictions being used by major UK betting operators. While far from perfect, the data release marks a step in the right direction. It finally begins to shed light on how widespread restrictions are and what forms they take.

To add context, I reached out to the Gambling Commission directly following the publication of their blog and was able to gain some further clarification on several points. While this was not an in-depth discussion and I have not seen the raw data, a few helpful insights were shared that are worth passing on.

I also have some thoughts of my own to share and interpretation of what this means from a ‘Smart Bettors’ perspective.

Headline Stats and What’s Really Included

The headline figure is that 4.31% of all “active” accounts were restricted in 2024. However, this comes with some important caveats. Firstly, the Commission confirmed that casino-only accounts were excluded from this study. That is a crucial detail, especially given concerns that the data may have been diluted by users who only ever spin a few slots or play the occasional game of roulette.

Even so, the definition of “active” remains very broad. It includes any account that placed a single bet during the year. Based on what we know about restriction patterns, that significantly underplays the real picture. Once you begin to narrow it to frequent sports bettors, particularly those focused on horse racing or football, the impact becomes far more pronounced.

Interestingly, the Gambling Commission referred to findings from its past Patterns of Play research, which estimated that around 25% of accounts involve both betting and gaming activity. So even with casino-only users removed from this analysis, a large number of accounts still represent blended use. Again, deeper filtering, such as by primary betting market or frequency of bets, would give us much more actionable insight.

If I were involved in a sport like horse racing, where anecdotal evidence suggests restrictions are particularly aggressive, I would be asking whether this data could be analysed from a sport-specific angle. That would be a valuable next step, although I wouldn’t be holding my breath to expect much in the form of leadership on this from those in charge of horse racing.

The Limits of What the GC Can Ask For

One other insight worth noting is that the Gambling Commission must consider the proportionality of its requests to operators, especially when gathering data like this. While many of us want more detailed sport-level breakdowns, they need to balance that with what can reasonably be demanded from firms under current regulatory guidelines.

That is why we are seeing high-level figures in this blog. It is not ideal, but it is a reflection of what is possible in this phase of the process.

The Real Purpose of This Work

This study is not about mandating an end to restrictions. It is about understanding how, when, and why they are applied, and what lessons can be learned from both good and bad practice.

We have all seen the worst-case scenarios. Someone signs up, verifies their account, deposits funds, places a few bets, and is restricted without being told. The only way they find out is through repeated, frustrating conversations with customer support. And when they try to withdraw their balance, they are met with further checks, turnover requirements, or delay tactics.

This kind of opaque and inconsistent treatment is exactly the sort of practice that should be scrutinised. It is not just about fairness to the punter. It is about basic operational transparency.

Stake Factoring and Closures

One major takeaway from the data is that stake factoring was the most common form of restriction, applied to 2.68% of active accounts. In over half of these cases, stakes were slashed to below 9% of a normal customer’s limits, often as low as 1%. This is effectively a soft ban, allowing operators to keep the customer on-site and potentially in the casino without formally closing the account.

After all, how often have you heard of someone being banned from an online casino but allowed to bet on sports?

Full account closures also occurred frequently, affecting 2.23% of accounts. The pattern is familiar to many. Restrict first, close later once the account is deemed unprofitable.

Very few firms use market-specific restrictions, such as racing-only bans. Only 0.25% of accounts saw that type of limit. This suggests a blunt-instrument approach by most operators, with little attempt to tailor restrictions to specific behaviours or patterns.

Profitability Equals Restrictions

The data confirms what many have long believed. 46.78% of restricted accounts were in profit, compared to just 25.42% of all active accounts. Being a winning bettor dramatically increases your chance of being restricted.

Yet, profitability isn’t the driving factor behind all restrictions as 51.29% of customers impacted by them had made a loss on their betting accounts. This highlights the advanced tools and AI technology being utilised to discover and weed out potential winners before they have even won!

Anyone who has bet with companies such as Flutter, who include Paddy Power, Skybet and Betfair will relate to this as they are frankly excellent at benchmarking just how much value or not a customer will provide to them very early on in a new account’s lifecycle.

It’s not rare to see new customers limited within a handful of bets placed if flagged as ‘negative value’. Flutter is by no means the only big bookmaker group that do this – they all do to an extent and as each year passes, they are getting increasingly better at weeding out anyone not a loser with impressive speed.

A breakdown by sport would explore this issue even more, but even as it stands, this is clear evidence of how success or ‘potential success’ leads to penalty in today’s market.

And again, for those betting into skill-based sports like racing or football, the restriction rate is likely far higher.

The Black Market Question

One of the most interesting things the Commission flagged, and perhaps the most important long term, is their desire to understand whether commercial restrictions are pushing customers toward illegal gambling operators.

In plain terms, are restrictions feeding the black market?

It is a question we at SBC have been asking for years as its clear to us there is a correlation.

And while I have no additional insight into how the Commission plans to approach this, I do find the timing significant. The debate over the black market is louder than ever, and this type of research could help quantify just how much of a factor restrictions truly are.

I dare say, bookmakers would do well to pay attention to this line of inquiry. Whilst the BGC (who represent big bookmakers) gnash their teeth about the danger of the black market, the question needs asking – are they also helping its growth with the increasing imposition of blanket restrictions across all sports on any punter showing a modicum of ability?

Hence why this analysis, and hopefully a deeper dive into it can look at improvements.

The Road Ahead

The Gambling Commission deserves credit for beginning this process. This is only an initial step, but it shows a willingness to investigate a topic that has for too long been swept under the rug.

We urge the Commission to go deeper. Engage with those making the decisions. Speak to the trading teams. Understand the rationale behind stake cuts, closures, and market bans.

Ask why some accounts are limited within days and others are left untouched. Push for data that shows how restrictions are applied by market, by sport, and by activity level.

Is there a better way than simply carte-blanche restrictions across all sports betting for those deemed unprofitable?

For example, what is stopping bookmakers accepting bets in bigger markets from such bettors?

It stands to reason that a shrewd punter can’t bet at 9am on horse racing but why can’t they 2 minutes before a race starts when the bookie can trade that into a liquid market?

Similarly, for football – a bookmaker might not take a bet on Bulgarian 2^nd division games 3 days out, but why can’t they lay a bet in a big market such as in the Bundesliga an hour before kick-off?

The lack of nuance and an encouragement for bookmakers to look at where they can lay bets from ‘sharp’ or ‘smart’ bettors should be on the agenda.

Above all, the GC must consider what comes next. We do not need headline stats alone.

We need accountability, scrutiny, and a better understanding of the real-world impact of these decisions and perhaps some encouragement to explore new approaches that work better than the current whack-a-mole big bookies utilise when dealing with winners.

In Summary

This blog is a welcome development, but it barely scratches the surface. Casino-only accounts may have been excluded, but the broader data set still includes low-activity and blended-use customers, meaning the true scale of restrictions on serious sports bettors is still under-represented.

Meanwhile, smart punters continue to adopt strategies that help them stay under the radar, sometimes deliberately losing early or mimicking losing behaviour to maintain access. As bizarre as it sounds, these are real conversations being had daily. How can I look like a loser, just so I am allowed to bet?

The Gambling Commission has made it clear this is not about banning restrictions altogether. It is about understanding how they are being used and what their unintended consequences might be.

And while the GC has not explicitly stated any intent to step in and control how restrictions are applied, it does read, at least to me, as a signal that greater transparency, consistency, and fairness may be expected going forward.

The following remarks at the end of the blog are especially telling:

“As noted in the White Paper, licensed operators should be transparent with customers, both at the start of the relationship and throughout, about how, when and why an account might be restricted, and ensure customers are aware of any restrictions prior to depositing funds or placing a bet. We are therefore exploring the scope for improvements in the communication and transparency from operators to consumers about how, when and why an account might be restricted. Whilst we recognise such transparency does not alleviate the frustration of those subject to severe restrictions, if this is a feature of an operator’s business model then it is something that they should inform consumers about.”

“It is not in our remit to mandate how operators handle their commercial liabilities, but we do have a statutory responsibility to ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair and open manner, to understand potential drivers of illegal gambling, and to ensure that industry practices are not having an adverse impact on the effectiveness of regulation. That is why as an evidence-led regulator we have undertaken this piece of work.”

This feels like more than just a data drop. It reads like a warning shot. One that says restrictions are not going away, but the way they are explained and applied is now under the microscope, especially in the context of the black market’s growth.

And rightly so. Here at SBC, we welcome this first step and will be watching on with great interest to see how this develops. All whilst banging the drum for a better deal for smart bettors than the current mess we have.