Gambling Commission Q1: Online GGY up 2%; regulator discusses self-reporting tools

Key points

– A maximum stake limit for slots was introduced

– Slot GGY still increased 14%, but betting and poker GGY fell

– The use of self-reporting tools may lead to better representation of gambling behaviours

The Gambling Commission has published its Q1 results for the period ending 30 June 2025, as well as a discussion on the new Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) methodology.

Q1 results

Online gross gambling yield (GGY) during this period increased 2% year-on-year to £1.49bn ($2.02bn), which was supported by growth across several verticals.

Slots GGY increased 14% to £745m while the number of spins grew 8% to 24.4 billion – both records for this dataset.

However, the number of online sessions lasting longer than an hour fell 9% to 8.8 million and the average session length shortened to 16 minutes. The average session length in Q1 2024 was 17 minutes, and 26 minutes in March 2019.

Good to know: During this period, a maximum stake limit was introduced for all online slot games, with a £5 limit for adults and £2 for young adults

Real event betting GGY fell 9% to £570m, the number of bets decreased 7% and the average monthly active accounts dropped 16%.

Betting premises GGY also dipped 5% to £552m, while the number of total bets and spins fell 3% to 3.2 billion.

Poker GGY fell 19.9% to £11.3m, while the number of bets placed fell from 170.9 million to 143.9 million.

Gambling Survey for Great Britain

When the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) was published last year, the rate of problem gambling jumped from 0.5% in previous surveys to an all-time high of 2.5%. Was it a change in methodology, or had something shifted in the UK landscape?

Gambling Insider previously analysed the new methods of the survey, going as far as comparing the PGSI against the DSM-IV and explaining how that would influence results, but the new research has been published by Patrick Sturgis, Professor of Quantitative Social Science at the Department of Methodology, London School of Economics.

The first point of interest was mentioning gambling in the survey to begin with.

The previous survey was marketed as a health survey, but Sturgis argued that by mentioning gambling in the title, it could be more likely to attract people with an interest in gambling.

Secondly, the method of collecting answers was significant.

The old study was conducted over the phone, while the new survey is completed online through a self-reporting tool.

This led to PGSI scores jumping almost 50%, suggesting there was a bias when in the presence on an interviewer.

The new study also had a longer list of gambling behaviours, but the research found this had no effect on people reporting behaviours differently.

Finally, this research recommended that the Gambling Commission review its online guidance on interpreting GSGB estimates of gambling and gambling harm, to better reflect the likely causes of differences between them and those of earlier health surveys.

The Commission confirmed it will be doing this in the future.