In light of a new study unveiling that a percentage of UK gamblers either do not fully comprehend the conditions of some welcome bonuses, or outright find them “deceptive”, one of the co-authors behind the study tells SBC News what he believes should be done to better align bonuses with consumer expectations.

Jamie Torrance is a lecturer and researcher in psychology at Swansea University. He has explored problem gambling in-depth, with some of his other studies focusing on public perceptions of gambling in the British Army, how family dynamics influence gambling behaviours, and delivery of gambling advertising, to name a few.

Safe to say, he is an authoritative voice in the field of gambling studies.

In Torrance’s op-ed in The Conversation, it was noted noted that a large chunk of the respondents in his latest research either saw bonus incentives as “manipulative”, or were systematically miscalculating the compounding amounts, and it was bound to attract attention – SBC News had to dig further into the underlying issues.

The premise of the research is simple – get a survey pool of 585 participants who gambled in the past year, and show them a realistic welcome bonus modelled off of real promotions seen on online gambling platforms. 

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

Half of the participants saw it in a standard industry format, where the starting point was putting a £50 deposit towards this offer. The other half saw the same promotion, but clearly spelling out that an additional £750 needs to be gambled before any winnings could be withdrawn – exactly how a 10x wagering requirement would apply to a £50 deposit.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.”

Clearing up bonusing

When SBC News reached out to try and find out why the misconception is so widespread, Torrance concluded that how current offers are worded are not being understood intuitively.

“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.”

Up until recently, the above-mentioned gap was even wider. Before January, operators were able to put these multipliers as high as 50 times the bonus. However, the Gambling Commission capped them to 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, according to Torrance, capped multipliers are a different topic altogether from making costs visible for the consumer, and more is needed to be done in that direction. 

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

Bonuses have been getting a lot more attention lately, particularly during and after the Gambling Act review. A key measure of the review’s April 2023 White Paper was a ban on cross-selling bonuses between betting, gaming and lotteries. Some feel that more can be done to clean up bonusing practices, however.

One interesting idea that Torrance raised in our interview was hypothetical ‘age-differentiated incentives’, which treat users aged 18-24 differently from older players. Based on psychology, he argued that the latter 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 tabling a proposal to the Gambling Commission, which he believes would lead to better informed players further down the road.

“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.”