Personalisation and micro-staking in online gaming are two emerging trends that have raised serious concerns for the UK Gambling Commission, with the organisation’s deputy chief executive, Sarah Gardner, saying they require “serious consideration”.

Micro bets

Micro betting is an innovative form of gambling that allows betting on specific “micro” events during a sporting event, rather than just the overall outcome. For example, you can bet on the number of yellow cards given out in the next 20 minutes of the game. These bets are attractive to players because they are dynamic and allow you to place multiple bets in one game, rather than traditionally waiting for the final result.

The integration of sports betting into mobile apps has greatly contributed to the rise of micro betting. Operators can process bets and display odds instantly, which is especially important for micro betting. Opponents of this form of betting argue that its speed, excitement, and reliance on chance rather than knowledge of the sport pose a serious danger to players, especially those prone to addiction.

The head of the UK Gambling Commission also pointed to the subjective nature of micro betting, which leads to many disputes between players and operators. For example, there may be disagreements about whether a certain action has occurred during a game.

Sarah Gardner explained that subjectivity presents new challenges for operators and regulators: “Events such as goals, corners or yellow cards are objective – they either happen or they don’t. However, with micro betting, there are subjective elements such as the accuracy of a shot or whether a tackle was made. This leads to disputes and debates. We are seeing a significant increase in consumer disputes where higher margin, multiple option bets include subjective elements that one person may interpret differently to another.”

Some types of bets similar to those described by Sarah Gardner are already banned by the French regulator ANJ. The ANJ has banned bets that do not depend on the skill or knowledge of the players in the sport, arguing that bets must include the sporting outcome. For example, it is forbidden to bet on “the color of a player’s socks or whether the number of goals scored will be odd or even,” according to the ANJ guidelines .

Personalization

Sarah Gardner, Deputy Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission.

The UK Gambling Commission has also expressed concern about operators’ growing interest in personalisation. Operators use data collected during play to tailor future interactions with players. Each game played provides operators with more information about a player’s habits, allowing them to offer a more personalised experience and keep players engaged over time.

“If products or their presentation become increasingly aligned with consumer interests and engagement triggers, this may increase the risk of excessive gambling behaviour,” warned Sarah Gardner.

Operators say using AI to track player preferences and habits can help identify problematic behavior and protect players. For example, AI can detect changes in behavior, such as an increase in betting frequency after significant losses.

However, Charles Ritchie, co-founder of the charity Gambling with Lives, strongly disagrees that AI can effectively reduce harm: “Claims that AI can reduce potential harm in the gambling industry are simply a smokescreen. We have clear evidence from many families who have experienced the loss of loved ones that AI algorithms are simply not being used.”

Source