A fresh analysis of the UK Gambling Commission’s primary survey has raised some uncomfortable questions about what it’s actually measuring. One researcher found that participation estimates may be significantly higher than what operators are seeing in practice.

Dan Waugh from Regulus Partners compared figures from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) against real operator data across several key activities. The results don’t match up. Not even close.

The Numbers Don’t Add Up

The GSGB, launched in 2023 with around 20,000 participants annually, has become the Commission’s main tool for understanding how people gamble and where the risks lie. But Waugh’s work suggests the survey is painting an inflated picture of actual participation.

Look at casino table games: the survey claimed participation figures several times higher than the total number of casino visits operators actually recorded. Soccer pools were worse, with survey respondents claiming a player base many times larger than what the single operator on the market reported. Betting exchanges showed the same pattern, with survey estimates substantially outpacing actual market data.

Why the Disconnect?

Waugh points to well-documented survey design problems. The most obvious culprit is self-selection bias. People willing to answer gambling questionnaires tend to gamble more than the average person. Low response rates and sampling imbalances pile on top of that.

He also ruled out the alternative explanation: that vast unregulated gambling markets exist alongside official channels. That’s simply not credible. The structural flaws in the survey methodology are far more plausible.

Why This Matters

The GSGB isn’t just academic exercise. Policymakers and regulators have leaned on this data when shaping gambling regulation and harm reduction strategies. If the baseline numbers are wrong, then decisions built on those foundations become questionable.

Waugh’s view is straightforward: operators’ actual transaction data should carry more weight than survey responses when regulators are trying to understand the market. The Commission still backs the GSGB as one of the most comprehensive studies available, but this kind of scrutiny will keep the pressure on how seriously its findings should be taken.