Study Finds the UK’s £150 Gambling Check Threshold Catches Many Low-Risk Players Too

A new study published in Addiction says the UK’s GBP 150 ($198) net-deposit trigger for gambling affordability checks is only moderately good at separating higher-risk from lower-risk players. For PSPs and operators, the practical takeaway is simple: the current threshold is designed to catch harm early, but it also pulls in a lot of customers who do not appear to need intervention.

1. The research analysed open banking data from 424 gamblers in the UK and tried to model how the current threshold works in real-life conditions by combining transaction data with self-reported gambling risk scores.
2. Over a 12-month period, around two-thirds of those identified as being at risk went over the GBP 150 ($198) mark at least once. But about half of the low-risk or not-harmed group also crossed it, which is the catch: the trigger is broad enough that it will flag a lot of responsible spenders as well.
3. The authors describe that as a deliberate policy trade-off. In their view, the current level errs on the side of catching as many potentially vulnerable players as possible, even if it means more checks for customers who are gambling responsibly. The statistical result was not strong predictive power; the threshold’s discrimination score suggested a “fair” ability to tell higher-risk from lower-risk consumers.
4. The modelling also tested an alternative trigger of around GBP 187 ($247). That level appeared to offer a slightly better balance between consumer protection and reducing unnecessary checks, while the existing GBP 150 ($198) figure was still described as being within an acceptable range.
5. Another point relevant to operators is that looking at spending across multiple operators could give a more accurate picture of risk than checking activity on a single platform, which is the current UK approach. The study says the improvement is small and still needs validation, so this is not a clean fix so much as a hint that the current view is incomplete.

The study also found that younger adults, especially those under 30, often hit risk thresholds at lower spending levels. That supports the case for more targeted restrictions, but the authors also flagged clear limitations: the sample was relatively small, the participants were recruited via a crowdsourcing platform, and the wider gambling population was not representative. So this is useful evidence, not the final word.