Gambling expert urges operators to reveal the actual cost of bonuses

(AsiaGameHub) –   Following a new study that reveals some UK gamblers either don’t fully understand the terms of certain welcome bonuses or directly view them as “deceptive,” one of the study’s co-authors tells SBC News his thoughts on how to make bonuses more aligned with consumer expectations.

Jamie Torrance is a psychology lecturer and researcher at Swansea University. He has conducted extensive research on problem gambling; his other work includes studies on public perceptions of gambling in the British Army, how family dynamics shape gambling behaviors, and the delivery of gambling advertising, among other topics.

It’s fair to say he’s an authoritative voice in the field of gambling studies.

In Torrance’s op-ed for The Conversation, it was highlighted that many respondents in his latest research either saw bonus incentives as “manipulative” or consistently miscalculated the compounded amounts involved. This was sure to draw attention—so SBC News sought to dig deeper into the underlying issues.

The study’s premise is straightforward: survey 585 participants who gambled in the past year and present them with a realistic welcome bonus modeled after actual promotions from online gambling platforms.

As the research describes it: “Welcome bonus: get 150% up to £150 on your first deposit”.

Half the participants viewed the offer in a standard industry format, starting with a £50 deposit for the bonus. The other half saw the same promotion but with a clear note that an additional £750 must be wagered before any winnings can be withdrawn—exactly how a 10x wagering requirement applies to a £50 deposit.

“More than 90% of participants underestimated the true cost,” Torrance wrote for The Conversation. “Only around 5% got it right.”

“The £500 figure is telling. It is exactly what you would get if you applied the 10-times multiplier to the £50 deposit but ignored the 150% bonus on top. Most people understood part of the calculation but missed the compounding effect.”

Clarifying bonus practices

When SBC News reached out to understand why this misconception is so widespread, Torrance concluded that the wording of current offers isn’t intuitively understandable.

“I think it comes down to the structure of the offers themselves rather than any deficit on the part of bettors. The headline figures (the deposit match and the multiplier) are easy to read, but the interaction between them requires a multi-step calculation that most people don’t intuitively perform. People are grasping part of the offer and missing the compounding effect, and the standard format doesn’t help them bridge that gap. There’s also a motivational element at sign-up: someone keen to start playing is not in the ideal headspace to interrogate terms and conditions.”

Until recently, this gap was even wider. Before January, operators could set these multipliers as high as 50 times the bonus amount. However, the Gambling Commission capped them at 10x—a direct result of the Gambling Act Review White Paper, which called for simpler and more transparent promotions.

Torrance continued: “There has been real progress [with the White Paper], particularly on the structural side (financial risk checks, online slot stake limits, the statutory levy), and the work on direct marketing and cross-selling is welcome. On bonuses specifically, the January 2026 cap on wagering requirements at 10 times is a meaningful step in the right direction.”

However, Torrance notes that capped multipliers are a separate issue from making costs visible to consumers, and more needs to be done in that area.

“Our data suggest that even under the new rules, consumers are still significantly misjudging what these offers require of them.”

Bonuses have received increased attention lately, especially during and after the Gambling Act review. A key measure from the review’s April 2023 White Paper was a ban on cross-selling bonuses between betting, gaming, and lottery platforms. Still, some feel more can be done to improve bonus practices.

An interesting idea Torrance raised in our interview was hypothetical “age-differentiated incentives,” which treat users aged 18–24 differently from older players. Drawing on psychology, he argued that this younger age group is still at a stage where impulsivity, peer influence, and price sensitivity converge—and welcome bonuses could act as an entry point into sustained gambling.

“Several jurisdictions, including Australia, Spain, Belgium and Italy, have gone as far as banning inducements to new customers outright, which gives a sense of the range of options on the table internationally.

“An age-differentiated approach to inducements is something I think deserves serious consideration, and it’s an area I’m actively researching.”

Torrance concluded the interview by putting forward a proposal to the Gambling Commission, which he believes would lead to better-informed players in the future.

“I want to be fair here, because the Commission has done substantial work on consumer protection in recent years and the wagering cap itself is a good example of that. The refinement I’d point to is at the point of disclosure. Requiring operators to display a short worked example, in the same prominence as the headline offer, showing what the wagering requirement actually means (or its ’true cost’) would be a welcome change.”