New research suggests the UK’s £150 monthly gambling deposit threshold may place greater emphasis on preventing gambling-related harm than preserving player autonomy, while indicating that a slightly higher limit could offer a more balanced approach.
The findings come from a study published in the journal Addiction on 24 June, which re-examined banking data from British gamblers to assess whether the current financial vulnerability trigger accurately identifies players at risk of harm.
Researchers analysed a year’s worth of banking records from 424 UK gamblers. Applying the existing £150 monthly net deposit threshold, they found that around two-thirds of participants who displayed at least one indicator of gambling harm exceeded the limit during the study period. However, nearly half of those showing no signs of harm also crossed the same threshold.
Using a stricter definition of gambling-related harm, approximately three-quarters of higher-risk gamblers exceeded the trigger, while about half of lower-risk participants still did so. Across the entire sample, the highest recorded 30-day net deposit was £205.
The researchers concluded that the current £150 threshold appears to favour harm prevention over preserving gambling freedom.
The study also referenced a broader analysis of UK banking data, which found that around half of people depositing more than £150 per month remained “diverse spenders,” meaning their gambling expenditure was proportionate to their overall finances. The paper noted that previous consumer polling also showed resistance to lower affordability thresholds, with 44% of respondents considering a proposed £125 limit inappropriate.
When researchers calculated the deposit level that best distinguished higher-risk gamblers from lower-risk players, they identified an optimal threshold of approximately £187 per month. While this figure marginally outperformed the current limit, the analysis suggested the existing £150 trigger remains reasonably effective.
The preferred threshold varied significantly depending on policy priorities. A limit focused primarily on identifying as many at-risk gamblers as possible would fall to just £39 per month. Conversely, a threshold designed to maximise player freedom would rise to around £716. Under stricter harm criteria, the optimal level increased further to approximately £367.
The research also found younger adults generally required lower intervention thresholds than older gamblers. The authors highlighted similarities with the Netherlands, where monthly deposit limits are lower for players aged 18 to 24 than for older adults.
Another finding pointed to a limitation of the UK’s current system. Because financial vulnerability checks operate separately for each gambling operator, players spreading deposits across multiple platforms may remain below the £150 threshold at each site without triggering an assessment. Researchers described this effect as relatively modest but worthy of further investigation.
The authors cautioned that all 424 participants volunteered their banking data and may not represent the wider gambling population, meaning the exact threshold figures should be interpreted with care. They also noted that the current £150 financial vulnerability check has been in force since February 2025, while the more comprehensive financial risk assessment framework discussed in the study remains in a pilot phase.