Too many checks for too little risk?  

A study published on 25 June 2026 shows that the UK threshold used to trigger financial vulnerability checks in online gambling may affect many players who show no serious signs of harm.  

A system designed to protect, but one that raises questions  

In the UK, financial vulnerability checks in online gambling are based, in particular, on a net deposit threshold set at 176 euros. The aim is to identify players who may be at risk of gambling-related difficulties at an earlier stage and to intervene before the situation worsens. However, a new analysis suggests that this mechanism, in its current form, may target far more than just those who are genuinely vulnerable. 

Researchers Robert Heirene, from the University of Sydney, and Philip Newall, from the University of Bristol, examined how this threshold works in practice using open banking data. Their study, published in the scientific journal Addiction, is based on data from 424 British gamblers. The authors cross-referenced financial transactions with the scores reported by participants on the Gambling Problem Severity Index, a tool used to assess the level of risk associated with gambling behaviour. The main finding is that the €176 threshold appears to place a strong emphasis on harm prevention, even if this means including a large number of gamblers whose profile does not correspond to high risk.  

Nearly one in two low-risk players exceeds the threshold  

One of the most striking findings concerns players considered to be low-risk or no-risk. Over a twelve-month period, nearly half of them exceeded the €176 net deposit threshold at least once. The mechanism is not limited to the most concerning profiles. It can also affect consumers who, according to the data examined, show no serious signs of gambling-related harm. 

At the same time, around two-thirds of players considered to be at risk also crossed this threshold during the same period. The system is therefore successful in identifying a significant proportion of those of concern. However, it does so at the cost of broad detection, which also encompasses many players in the least concerning categories.  

This dual outcome encapsulates the full difficulty of regulating online gambling. A threshold that is too low increases the chances of identifying dangerous situations before they escalate. But it also increases the likelihood of triggering checks for people who do not appear to need them. Conversely, a higher threshold reduces interruptions for low-risk players, but may allow some vulnerable profiles to slip through the net.  

Accuracy deemed only ‘adequate’  

To measure the threshold’s effectiveness, the researchers used a statistical method known as the area under the curve. This indicator assesses a rule’s ability to distinguish between two groups – in this case, at-risk players and low-risk or non-at-risk players. The €176 threshold achieved a score of 0.66. 

This result is described in the study as merely an ‘adequate’ level of discrimination. It indicates that the threshold’s ability to clearly distinguish profiles of concern from others remains limited. The mechanism detects some at-risk players, but it also results in a significant number of false positives amongst players who are less at risk.  

An automated or semi-automated monitoring system cannot be assessed solely on the basis of the number of people it identifies. It is also necessary to examine who it identifies, with what degree of accuracy, and what consequences arise from the flag. Financial monitoring may be perceived as a protective measure, but also as an intrusion, particularly when the player does not understand why their behaviour is deemed concerning.  

Would a slightly higher threshold strike a better balance?  

The authors also tested other possible levels. Their modelling suggests that a threshold close to 219 euros could offer a slightly better balance between risk reduction and preserving the freedom of players who do not present any apparent problems.  

By raising the threshold slightly, the system could reduce the number of low-risk players flagged, whilst maintaining a reasonable ability to detect more concerning profiles. 

Opting for a low threshold may be justified if one considers that the human cost of problem gambling warrants a cautious approach. However, it becomes more questionable if the checks prove to be frequent, poorly understood or too burdensome for players whose behaviour does not indicate significant harm.   

All operators or a single operator: a limited difference  

The study also compares two ways of measuring players’ expenditure. The first involves taking into account thresholds across all operators used by a player. The second corresponds to the single-operator approach, used in the United Kingdom.  

The results indicate that thresholds calculated across multiple operators are better at identifying at-risk consumers. A player may spread their activity across several sites, which reduces the visibility of each operator when considered in isolation. A holistic view can therefore provide a more accurate picture of their actual behaviour. However, the authors emphasise that the observed difference remains small and requires further testing.   

Younger gamblers do not fit the same profile  

Another finding relates to age. In the sample studied, those under 30 generally have lower optimal thresholds than older gamblers. This result is consistent with previous research indicating that young adults are more exposed to the risks associated with gambling. 

A younger player may cross a lower threshold whilst already being in a risk zone of greater concern than an older player with different resources. Conversely, applying the same threshold to everyone may lead to certain risks being underestimated or certain profiles being subject to excessive monitoring.  

A threshold that could be improved, but is not without merit  

The UK threshold of 176 euros therefore appears to be an imperfect tool. It identifies a significant proportion of at-risk players, but it also flags many players who show no serious signs of harm.  

Ultimately, the study serves as a reminder that the regulation of online gambling cannot be based solely on a single figure. A threshold is a warning sign, not a diagnosis. It can alert, guide and trigger a review, but it is no substitute for a more detailed analysis of the player’s situation.