The U.K. Gambling Commission (UKGC) dropped a report last week that confirmed what sharp bettors and pretty much everyone else have suspected — and many have experienced — for years: sportsbooks love your business right up until you show a glimmer of intelligence, and then you’re tossed out like yesterday’s — financially successful– garbage.
Out of nearly 15 million active online betting accounts reviewed in the U.K., operators reported placing restrictions on about 643,000 of them. That’s 4.3%. Most were limited to thimble-sized portions. A good number of those accounts were eventually shut down altogether.
And while the report didn’t offer a detailed behavioral breakdown, it did include one statistic that’s hard to ignore: Nearly 47% of the restricted accounts were lifetime profitable. Among unrestricted accounts? Just 25% are profitable (a number that strains credulity by itself but that’s another story).
In other words: start winning at the U.K. books, and odds are you’ll get limited. Keep winning, and the door gets quietly closed behind you.
Same ol’ story
If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. This isn’t just a U.K. thing. This practice has been creeping through the U.S. market like mold behind drywall — quiet, hidden, and corrosive. I’ve only written about it three dozen times or so since I started covering this industry. But finally, there are signs that someone’s peeling the wallpaper back.
Massachusetts is doing something rare for a gaming regulator: asking questions. Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission began collecting data from its licensed operators about how many customers were getting limited, and why. BetMGM said about 1% of its Massachusetts accounts were impacted. FanDuel said only 0.043% of wagers were placed at the maximum limit, a stat that reveals very little, but at least it starts the conversation. More information is expected soon, and credit to the state officials for asking.
Same thing in Wyoming. The state brought in pro bettor Gadoon “Spanky” Kyrollos for a public discussion on limiting. The gaming commission later said that fewer than 1% of Wyoming customers had been restricted, and concluded it wasn’t a widespread issue, though, to be fair, Wyoming represents a tiny sliver of U.S. betting volume. Still, they took it seriously enough to investigate, and that’s more than can be said for most states.
The rest of the country? Crickets.
And that silence helps sportsbooks dodge the issue. For all their public talk about fair, fun, and responsible play, there’s been very little bordering on zero transparency around how and when customers get their accounts slashed. And the U.K. data makes clear: It’s not a fringe issue as the operators would lead you to believe.
Here’s what the U.K. numbers showed:
- 25% of all active accounts were lifetime profitable.
- 47% of restricted accounts were lifetime profitable.
- 36% of restricted accounts were limited to 9% or less of a normal stake.
- 22% were effectively shut out — limited to less than 1% of a normal bet.
Translation: we’ll take your bets, until we realize you know what you’re doing. Then sod off, mate.
From here, the consequences ripple. Sharp players go offshore. Others use beards or multi-account. The UKGC itself warned that these kinds of restrictions may be “drivers of illegal gambling.” That’s not just a customer inconvenience — it’s a regulatory concern.
Here’s a modest proposal
None of this is to say sportsbooks should be forced to accept every bet, at any amount. They are businesses. They have investors. They manage risk. The UKGC even states plainly: being a successful bettor isn’t a protected class. But there’s a meaningful difference between limiting a bettor and leaving them in the dark about why.
That’s where U.S. regulators can step in. Not to dictate business models, but to require transparency.
Tell players the rules. Publish limiting policies. Set minimum thresholds. Make customers aware — up front — how, when, and why limits might be imposed.
If a book wants to kneecap someone for betting into soft lines, or chasing steam, or making correlated parlays that actually have a chance — fine. Just don’t pretend it’s about “fairness.” Say what it is.
This isn’t a new fight. But it’s no longer anecdotal. The U.K. report gave us real numbers. Real patterns. Real evidence. Now it’s time for the U.S. market to catch up.
There are a few notable exceptions, like Circa and Prime. Books that publish limits, honor them, and take action win or lose. But those shops are the exception, not the norm. The dominant online model — the so-called “Euro model” — is built around screening out winners and avoiding volatility.
Fifteen million accounts. Nearly 650,000 restricted. Almost half of them profitable.
The books say they’re here to take bets.
The data — at least in the U.K. — says otherwise.
At the very least, tell us the limits. Tell us what will get us banned. Seems like a simple ask.
