The latest Gambling Survey for Great Britain reports a stabilisation of problem gambling prevalence, but questions over its methodology – and its accuracy – continue to undermine the headline figures. Within months of its launch, the GSGB reset gambling harm levels to six times the size of the previous decade. Which is why we’ve been told to read with caution: the Gambling Commission’s statistics are not reliable according to independent assessors, its methodology needs correction according to the ONS, but they have, allegedly, fulfilled their most important use – to change the direction of government policy. And seemingly, so it goes on.
The Gambling Commission’s latest Gambling Survey for Great Britain has reported a slight decline in the proportion of respondents classified as problem gamblers, with the Problem Gambling Severity Index rate falling from 2.7 percent to 2.4 percent.
The survey, based on responses from more than 20,700 adults collected throughout 2025, found overall gambling participation remained largely unchanged, with 47 percent of adults gambling in the previous four weeks and 27 percent doing so when lottery-only players were excluded.
The Commission described the results as stable over the three years the GSGB has been running, with Executive Director Tim Miller saying the data provides a “richer, more timely picture” of gambling behaviour.
Well he would say that wouldn’t he? But the latest figures are unlikely to settle the ongoing debate over the GSGB’s methodology, accuracy and the Commission’s analytical steer.
Since its introduction, the survey has attracted criticism over its “push-to-web” approach and comparatively low response rates, with opponents arguing it risks overstating both gambling participation and gambling-related harm.
And that doesn’t take into account the massive gulf between the OHID survey findings and the GSGB’s into problem gambling with the Commission’s figures running at between four and six times higher than the medical profession’s survey.
One observer, speaking to Coinslot, raised the question: who would you trust – pen pushing anti-gambling civil servants at the Commission or the medical profession, also anti-gambling, who have been doing these surveys for decades?
Coinslot had to concede – he makes a very good point…on both.
And similar concerns were raised by The Tottenham Report, which argued that the survey’s methodology is susceptible to topic salience bias, potentially attracting respondents with a greater interest in gambling and inflating participation and harm estimates. The report also questioned the Commission’s continued reliance on the survey’s headline figures while those methodological concerns remain unresolved.
Among the survey’s most, probably the most vocal critics is gambling analyst Dan Waugh, who argues the regulator continues to rely on figures despite evidence that the GSGB over-reports participation in sectors where administrative data is available for comparison. Writing ahead of this year’s publication, Waugh said the Commission was preparing to publish results “in the knowledge that the results are inaccurate” and concluded: “On Thursday, by publishing statistics it knows are not to be trusted, it crosses a line.”
The real reach of the GSGB
Issued addresses 88,736
No response 66,013
Refused to take part 134
Participants 14,603
It’s no longer a question of trust
Dan Waugh said……. “On Thursday, by publishing statistics it knows are not to be trusted, it crosses a line……
Originally published on Coinslot on July 27, 2026. Republished with permission.