Feedback UK Gamblers - New Checks if Spending 3k in a 90-day Rolling Period!

[dunover]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Gamblers who spend more than £1,000 online in a 24-hour window will have to undergo a financial risk assessment, the industry regulator has announced.

The Gambling Commission said this would also apply to anyone spending over £3,000 in a rolling 90-day period. Under-25s will have lower thresholds.

The assessments will be based on data held by credit reference agencies, but the commission has insisted they are not "affordability checks".

Gambling companies said they were unhappy with the changes, which they said will push customers toward the black market.

The commission has not set a timeline for the changes saying they will be introduced in a "very careful, staged way".

It said there was evidence some high-spending customers were experiencing financial difficulties but not being identified or supported by bookies.

The checks will start with over-25s who gamble more than £5,000 in a rolling 24-hour period. Initially, they will only apply to the largest gambling companies .

The watchdog said the first stage will affect less than 0.5% of customers and will be rolled out this summer, following engagement with the industry and other stakeholders.

The threshold will eventually be lowered to £1,000 in 24 hours, or £750 for under-25s.

Oh goodeee!

 

[Mr Shine]

So, 40 BJ bets at £25, ignoring splits and doubles. Win half lose half, break even, BAM Hammertime?

Or does spend mean a net loss?

 

[lukey141]

They just don't stop tightening the noose do they?

I hope that spend means lose not wager.

If they're going to start flagging anyone who wagers £1000 in 24 hours it's going to be miserable. Especially if it triggers every time you do so? What if you're winning not losing on the session/day/week/month etc.

Wish they'd just leave us be.

 

[Jono777]

July 7th not April 1st lol

 

[mcgameboy]

July 7th not April 1st lol

I see the Belgian football manager has hacked Jono's account.....

 

[andysbetting1187]

It just makes an already difficult to navigate market even harder. Will be interesting to see if this is a soft or hard credit check, but I can see more people moving towards offshore gambling.

Good job theres a load to choose from with a high rating - joking aside hopefully this will help be the catalyst to sort out the review scores

£3k over a 90 day period is not actually that much if a player is constantly withdrawing and then re-depositing (recycling funds)

 

[mcgameboy]

It just makes an already difficult to navigate market even harder. Will be interesting to see if this is a soft or hard credit check, but I can see more people moving towards offshore gambling.

Good job theres a load to choose from with a high rating - joking aside hopefully this will help be the catalyst to sort out the review scores

£3k over a 90 day period is not actually that much if a player is constantly withdrawing and then re-depositing (recycling funds)

Well there's the big question.

Will the calculation be based on "spend" (counting total deposits only) or "net spend" (total deposits minus total withdrawals)?

Because the potential difference between those two can be wildly different.

Just going by my spend last month, I deposited a total of £3,250.
But my total withdrawals were £3,325, so I finished the month in profit.

So in the eyes of the UKGC, have I....

1. exceeded my 90 day spending cap before I even got to the end of the first thirty days (which means I am effectively banned from gambling for two full months) OR
2. spent "less than zero", in which case I can carry on regardless?

 

[satchnz]

This won’t impact me in the slightest but I assume this is per casino?

Also, it has to be based on total loss and not wagering etc surely? Oh wait, this is the UKGC…

 

[andysbetting1187]

This won’t impact me in the slightest but I assume this is per casino?

Also, it has to be based on total loss and not wagering etc surely? Oh wait, this is the UKGC…

Knowing the UKGC, it will be based on what they think you might deposit.

They will work this out by looking at your regular deposit amount, multiplying this by 10 (to be on the safe side) and then double it just to be extra careful. All to protect us.

 

[lukey141]

I really hope it is wager just because of how stupid it will be when a casino is forced to check on players who are winning after wagering £1000.

Even though he's up £500 time to fire up the mandatory financial risk assessment! Can we be sure he can afford to win money? Let's check his credit history just to be sure.

Yet another thing that will push people to unregulated.

Eventually there won't be a player left on actual UK websites.

 

[dunover]

Common sense would decree it's a rolling loss limit, but we are talking the UKGC....

 

[SYPlayer95]

Common sense would decree it's a rolling loss limit, but we are talking the UKGC....

It has to be otherwise it just wouldn't work. Imagine trying to wager a bonus lol

 

[itsme123]

How are they going to police it in bookies shops, or can anyone go in and lose as much as they have every day?

 

[Downsman]

Jeez..hope my 20 quid a month depo doesn't get the red flags flying!

 

[andysbetting1187]

It has to be otherwise it just wouldn't work. Imagine trying to wager a bonus lol

It just wouldnt work either way for me. My blackjack bets alone are usually £1k a box so I will be getting hammered with credit checks so will just swerve it altogether and stick to bricks and mortar

 

[SYPlayer95]

How are they going to police it in bookies shops, or can anyone go in and lose as much as they have every day?

Bookies do what they want. Ive never been asked to provide anything.

 

[andysbetting1187]

Ive never been asked to provide, but I have been limited multiple times on the amount I'm allowed to put on a bet.

To the point where i now bet with a private bookie its 100 times easier

Bookies do what they want. Ive never been asked to provide anything.

 

[SYPlayer95]

Ive never been asked to provide, but I have been limited multiple times on the amount I'm allowed to put on a bet.

To the point where i now bet with a private bookie its 100 times easier

I was told once that shop staff in BetFred were paid a commision based on profits.

Probably some truth in this as look at the fines they've had.

 

[philderby]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Gamblers who spend more than £1,000 online in a 24-hour window will have to undergo a financial risk assessment, the industry regulator has announced.

The Gambling Commission said this would also apply to anyone spending over £3,000 in a rolling 90-day period. Under-25s will have lower thresholds.

The assessments will be based on data held by credit reference agencies, but the commission has insisted they are not "affordability checks".

Gambling companies said they were unhappy with the changes, which they said will push customers toward the black market.

The commission has not set a timeline for the changes saying they will be introduced in a "very careful, staged way".

It said there was evidence some high-spending customers were experiencing financial difficulties but not being identified or supported by bookies.

The checks will start with over-25s who gamble more than £5,000 in a rolling 24-hour period. Initially, they will only apply to the largest gambling companies .

The watchdog said the first stage will affect less than 0.5% of customers and will be rolled out this summer, following engagement with the industry and other stakeholders.

The threshold will eventually be lowered to £1,000 in 24 hours, or £750 for under-25s.

Oh goodeee!

Well that's you fkd then!

 

[Lemon]

It can't be £1000 turnover surely? That's just completely daft. Hmm - this is the UKGC we're talking about...

 

[teckiwi]

Spending to me reads as deposits(not losses) so it could be a mess despite cashouts etc.

 

[Webzcas]

Do you know what? If this is implemented sensibly, I actually think this is a good course of action by the UKGC.

Yes, there will be cries of 'Nanny State' but step back and be objective for one second. Think of the lives that have been ruined by an addict spending what access to money they have, especially in the early hours. Not just their own lives, but of their family and friends.

This new check on spending could save a lot of heartache.

 

[teckiwi]

^^Are similar restraints in place to stop people buying books of scratchcards?

 

[SYPlayer95]

^^Are similar restraints in place to stop people buying books of scratchcards?

Yeah, there's a limit on the number you can buy in one shop. Doesn't stop you going to another, of course.

 

[dunover]

To confirm, it's net deposits in other words the difference between them and withdrawals so effectively a rolling loss-limit.

It's also per operator, starting with the big bookie sites. So pretty pointless in a way.

 

[teckiwi]

Yeah, there's a limit on the number you can buy in one shop. Doesn't stop you going to another, of course.

Right, I rememeber watching youtubers back in the day buying full packs and doing thousands of pounds a month(ie paul sandwell - sandwellmobiles and another lad who actually won a 250k jackpot iirc then basically quit(the right way to go lol)).

 

[Webzcas]

^^Are similar restraints in place to stop people buying books of scratchcards?

Fair point and no extremely difficult to manage, ie impossible.

To confirm, it's net deposits in other words the difference between them and withdrawals so effectively a rolling loss-limit.

It's also per operator, starting with the big bookie sites. So pretty pointless in a way.

Another good point. Nothing stopping you signing up to multiple casinos and operators are hardly likely to share their customer data with one another. But I still think the intention is good.

Just thinking of myself and my situation. Being signed up to Gamstop and knowing playing offshore is akin to playing Russian Roulette - as an operator could pull at anytime, the UK players are banned card, when going to withdraw a big win. This alone, puts me off even trying to play at one of the few offshore sites that are deemed as good.

So my own situation has probably saved me countless £'s over the last few years.

 

[satchnz]

To confirm, it's net deposits in other words the difference between them and withdrawals so effectively a rolling loss-limit.

It's also per operator, starting with the big bookie sites. So pretty pointless in a way.

Imagine how many more percentage points they’d have to shave off RTPs in order to fund an industry wide system…

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Do you know what? If this is implemented sensibly, I actually think this is a good course of action by the UKGC.

Yes, there will be cries of 'Nanny State' but step back and be objective for one second. Think of the lives that have been ruined by an addict spending what access to money they have, especially in the early hours. Not just their own lives, but of their family and friends.

This new check on spending could save a lot of heartache.

Very much this.

Forgive the laziness but a variation on this thread came up at the end of last year and TBH my reply to that would fit equally well here.

We live in a country where 39% of adults have £1000 or less in savings, so a world where online gambling losses of over £1000 in a rolling 24 hour period flags up a financial risk assessment sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

Comments Welcome Post in thread 'ex-Chancellor Wants to Raise Online Gaming Tax From 21% to 50%'

Nov 29, 2025

I'm finding it hard to give too much of a shit about this. Whichever way you want to slice it, gambling is a societally useless pastime, 'best case scenario' is that people won't lose too much, will get a modicum of entertainment and not fall into any of the bear traps that gambling represents to the individual and therefore by extension to wider society - because none of us exists in a vacuum.

I say this as someone who still enjoys having a gamble online, but it's not an activity I can particularly defend on any level, and if it disappeared from the world tomorrow I wouldn't really be...

• ChopleyIOM

• 

This was a subject I continued to turn over in my head, and in January this year I made the video linked below.

 

[Webzcas]

We live in a country where 39% of adults have £1000 or less in savings, so a world where online gambling losses of over £1000 in a rolling 24 hour period flags up a financial risk assessment sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

I would not be surprised if that percentage was now substantially higher. Certainly not many people have 3 months worth of pay checks saved up.