A fresh academic analysis of open banking data has questioned whether the UK’s £150 net-deposit trigger for affordability checks is fit for purpose, finding the threshold catches a lot of recreational players alongside genuine risk cases.

The Research Findings

Researchers examining spending patterns across 424 UK gamblers discovered an uncomfortable truth: roughly half of players classified as low-risk still crossed the £150 threshold at some point during a 12-month period. Meanwhile, around two-thirds of those flagged as higher-risk did exceed it. On paper, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it means a significant portion of the system’s interventions target people with minimal gambling issues.

The study, published in Addiction, combined transaction data with self-reported risk assessments to model how the threshold performs in real-world conditions. The statistical analysis showed only moderate discrimination between higher and lower-risk players, described as “fair” rather than strong predictive ability.

A Deliberate Trade-off

The researchers acknowledge this isn’t necessarily a design flaw. The current approach prioritises casting a wide net to catch vulnerable players, even if it means flagging plenty of responsible gamblers. That’s a legitimate policy choice aligned with harm prevention priorities, though it comes with obvious downsides: unnecessary friction for unproblematic users.

The modelling suggested a slightly higher trigger at around £187 could improve the balance between consumer protection and avoiding excessive intervention. The authors concluded the existing £150 mark still falls within an acceptable range, though.

What Could Actually Help

More interesting is the finding on cross-operator monitoring. Rather than assessing behaviour on single sites, the study suggests tracking spending across multiple platforms could paint a more accurate risk picture. That improvement was modest and requires further validation, but it points toward a potentially smarter approach than simply adjusting one number.

Age emerged as a significant factor too. Younger adults, particularly under-30s, reach risk thresholds at lower spending levels. That supports calls for age-based restrictions backed by evidence on vulnerability.

Real-world Limitations

The researchers are appropriately cautious about their conclusions. The sample size was relatively small, participants were recruited via crowdsourcing rather than representing the broader gambling population, and the authors explicitly flag the preliminary nature of their results. Larger datasets would be needed to properly inform future policy decisions.

What this study does is inject some useful data into an otherwise heated debate. The affordability check system isn’t perfect. But the researchers suggest it’s doing what it was designed to do: erring on the side of caution. Whether that’s the right balance is ultimately a question for regulators, not researchers.