Derek Webb has taken the journey from poker player to table game innovator to gambling reform advocate. Along the way, he has fought many a battle in court and in the public arena on the issue of gambling, fighting for his cause against the industry, regulators and governments on both sides of the Atlantic. A few weeks back even Coinslot was in the crosshairs with Webb criticising the paper’s position on government policy. Since then, both have got together to see the argument through the other’s lens. The gap is vast, but there are some issues where the union flag is flying. Sometimes your enemy can also be your friend…
Coinslot: Can you give us a quick headline tour of the life and times of Derek Webb? Your roots, education, career and the main landmarks?
Derek Webb: In my early teens, I hung out with friends who played in a band and practiced at a casino owned by one of their fathers, and I had a summer job where I enjoyed meeting office staff who spent nights at casinos.
I studied for A levels at college and learnt how to play Stripped-Deck Five-Card Stud against older and wealthier students.
I knew then that I wanted to play casino poker. However, it was not that easy, because some casinos were closing or choosing not to offer poker after the 1968 Act came into force.
Coinslot: In the industry most will view you as one of the leading critics of high street gambling operations and gaming machines. You weren’t always seen through that lens. You’ve had quite a remarkable life as a poker player, a games inventor – they must have been exciting, heady days? Give us an idea of what Derek Webb was like back then?
Derek Webb: Later in the 1970s, casinos became exciting again. Backgammon tournaments drew in new players; blackjack players could play skilfully and Hold’Em had got started.
In the early 1980s I was one of the first Brits to play in the US and then introduced Omaha to the UK. But in the long run, full-time poker is boring and my capability had not progressed as much as some others.
I got lucky being in the right place at the right time in the mid-1990s to create Three Card Poker, although I regard my subsequent Blackjack side-bet 21+3 as a superior invention.
Coinslot: It was a dream life-style – you travelled the world, became a multi-millionaire and then as your business career evolved you navigated your way through a battle in court involving the US government, the creation and sale of your Three Card Poker business and then on to the path of philanthropy, advocacy and reform campaigning. How did this shift evolve?
Derek Webb: I never regarded it as a dream lifestyle. Some of the poker losers had far more esoteric lifestyles than I did.
My US litigation was, in effect, on behalf of the US Government, as it was a federal civil antitrust action, under which our damages award was trebled by federal legislation.
If I had not won this case, I would not have taken my subsequent positions.
If there had not been licensing objectives in the 2005 Act that I considered were not being upheld, I would not have anticipated being able to prevail with campaigning.
The litigation gave me maturity and the ability to understand the importance of evidence.
This and the Act failings were the two catalysts in my evolution.
Coinslot: Now you are very much focused on gambling. I think it was the Guardian newspaper a few years ago that described you as poacher turned gamekeeper. What was the turning point that led you to what many in our arena would consider a hostile position on gambling?
Derek Webb: The trade, especially trollers aligned with it, has been very hostile towards advocates of reforming gambling.
I have never described myself as a “poacher turned gamekeeper”. I had many years of dissatisfaction with regulatory legislation as it applied to poker and to the introduction of new games.
We proved in 2007 that the defendant had committed fraud on the US Patent Office, engaged in sham litigation, attempted to monopolise a market and caused financial damage to a competitor.
Despite this, the defendant retained gambling licences, showing me that the regulatory standards were meaningless.
Coinslot: Before we go into your Labour List Opinion article, you have strongly pushed back against the industry’s criticisms of yourself, stating definitively “I am not anti-gambling”. In order to get a better understanding of your position, what gambling are you in favour of? And what gambling are you opposed to?
Derek Webb: I cannot imagine ever opposing the National Lottery Draw, traditional bingo, betting at the racecourse, actual over-the-counter race and sports betting, casino table games or FECs, although there are some aspects of some of these activities that could be improved.
My primary concerns in relation to online gambling are the offshoring, the transnational licences and the promotion based on data, algorithms and offers.
My primary concern relating to machines, and online slots, is that the speed is too fast. The average theoretical loss on a table game is around one stake per hour, whereas on a slot game it is around one stake per minute.
Coinslot: We notice the absence of AGCs from your list. Are you actually advocating banning them from the high street?
Derek Webb: I am not aware of any government initiative to ban AGCs and I do not advocate for a ban.
Coinslot: If we can turn to your Labour list article from a few weeks back – obviously not so much your criticisms of Coinslot: like you we have our own fair share of critics, including one we both have in common the Gambling Commission!
The first area of discussion would be gambling and the economy.
You argue that gambling reform is the best policy for economic growth. However, the reform that you are aligned to, on the surface, seems more focused on reducing high street operation numbers. Now, analysts believe this will lead to a decline in local employment, business rates income, a fall in revenues to the Treasury, licensing fees, Gambling Levy etc. And the industry argues it would also bring about more shuttered shops and a shift in revenues from land-based operations to online, particularly illegal operations.
Talk us through your economic programme and vision for growth on our high streets and how that will not lead to the losses as outlined by the industry.
Derek Webb: All gambling activity is detrimental from a macroeconomic perspective. This is only counterbalanced if tax rates are high enough and the costs of harm are low enough.
I am not an economic expert, but I respect the work that the economic consultancies Landman and NERA have done.
There has not been any independent analysis that disproves their work. In fact, their macro modelling applies nationally, meaning that the negative impact at a local level in areas of economic disadvantage is understated.
In my 2007 litigation, we retained a top economist as our financial expert. We researched the biased opinions of the opposing financial expert, who we were able to destroy on the witness stand.
The mistake you are making is to think of this as a microeconomic concept and fail to understand the premise of “but for”.
That is, but for gambling, the spending would go elsewhere.
The onus is on the trade to prove that spend on gambling is better for the economy than spend on other goods and services.
Coinslot: Maybe it’s because we’re talking specifically about gambling in this interview, but there is an inconsistency in your position that all gambling activity is detrimental from a “macroeconomic perspective”.
If we’re talking macroeconomic, smoking, drinking, even clubbing are probably
more detrimental to the economy and public well-being. And yet you can buy smokes and alcohol everywhere on the high street – and the impact both have on the NHS is incalculable.
So, why is it easy to buy fags and booze – and multiple National Lottery scratchcards for that matter – in every 4-5 shops on a UK high street, and not enter a highly regulated and restricted AGC?
Derek Webb: I am not qualified to have a plan for the high streets, but neither are those making representations on behalf of the gambling trade.
There may be other trades that are detrimental to the high street, but I do not have relevant personal insights.
My expertise is in gambling, and I have achieved litigation success with appropriate economic modelling.
I was a funder in similar litigation where the defendant was a leading B machine supplier. Our group prevailed at trial in 2018 and then settled for over £150 million.
Coinslot: The second key area we need to examine is gambling reform. Many would say that reform should go two ways – opening doors and closing windows. As someone who is not anti-gambling, what reform do you advocate that will address the problems you associate with high street gambling, and the reforms that you would advocate to enable gambling businesses to further invest on the high street and continue to contribute to the economy? Or should they not at all?
Derek Webb: This question includes the false assumption that there is an economic benefit to the growth of the gambling trade.
Increasing total gambling consumption increases total gambling harm.
We could not have prevailed in the FOBT campaign, supported by Coinslot, if DCMS had not accepted that B2s were economically detrimental.
Coinslot: We appreciate the honesty, but many will consider your position to be based on a false assumption too – that gambling operations have no economic benefit.
The employment, the contributions to the Treasury, the business rates and local authority services support, the local supply chain etc – these economic factors all exist. They can’t just be dismissed.
Your ‘false assumption’ assumption won’t cut it in the living rooms of the several thousand people made redundant by land based betting companies since the last budget – nor the 7-8,000 family members affected by those redundancies, the soon to be shuttered shops etc. So, campaigning for specific gambling closures – without any plan for replacing those businesses and jobs, is it justifiable or reckless…or both?
Derek Webb:I regard AGCs in coastal resorts, and AGCs with long premise-license history, as different from those AGCs that opened or relocated in or after 2019, when the FOBT stake was reduced.
Since then, the number of B machines in bingo halls and AGCs combined has increased by 75 percent, while GGY has increased by 60 percent and 120 percent, respectively. This contrasts with the relatively limited change in B machine GGY in casinos and LBOs.
In 2019, the Gambling Commission’s interpretation of “available for use” allowed tablets to be considered as machines. In bingo halls, there is dedicated seating and surface for tablet use, but B content should not be available on those tablets.
In AGCs, there is no dedicated seating and surface, so tablets should not be considered as machines. This tablet factor, which does not apply to casinos or LBOs, is the driver of the abnormal increases.
The Commission interpretation ignored the importance of the licensing objectives. It is a perfect example of the complacency sometimes exhibited under DCMS.
Coinslot: Moving on to high street gambling operators. In your article, you singled out international operators who have invested massively on UK high streets. In the context of your opinion piece, we found it a really odd comment. Were you opening the door to the discussion that the UK shouldn’t have overseas investment on our high streets? And given that all the staff employed by overseas companies are British, much of the supply chain that serves those operations are British, all the money from those venues goes to British authorities, British communities, British charities and British R&D, innovation and technology – what point were you trying to make?
Derek Webb: Again, the question is based on false assumptions. As currently operated, B machines are extracting wealth, not creating it.
US and EU companies control most of the supply of B machines which ultimately leads to an unfair market advantage and I think it’s reasonable that I would always challenge the record of operators on the high street.
And I do not accept the assertion that none of the money generated from B machines leaves Britain.
Coinslot: Finally, can we tackle politics and regulation, which we probably should deal with separately. We found your recent opinion piece as a mix of defence and attack.
Let’s deal with the defensive first. You wanted to put the record straight as to your financial support for Labour and the Lib Dems. And you were critical of the line from Coinslot that stated the Prime Minister should be reminded that he must govern for the country, not the party and not its donors. You openly stated that you were unhappy with the Tories on gambling reform, and provided support to Lib Dem and Labour candidates in the General Election. Do you think by doing so, albeit most likely inadvertently, you opened the door to questions as to whether this form of financial support for political parties does cast a cloud over donors and their influence in politics – after all, your donation is tied to a change in policy?
Derek Webb: I have never had any financial interest in my campaigning, but my detractors will always look for any excuse to raise questions.
I have not made any donations to Labour since 2024. It would be astounding if donors provided funds to recipients who were not perceived to be on a similar page on their general policy outlook.
Coinslot: Whilst on the subject of political contributions, particularly in the case of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling and your personal donations – we appreciate you have no obligation to answer to or clarify your position – but do you think that you have compromised your status as a gambling reform advocate in the UK by donating to Labour and the Lib Dems, and campaigning for GAR changes in the UK from offices in Beverley Hills, Los Angeles?
Derek Webb: My campaigning does not come from a physical place, but from wherever my head and heart are.
I may donate to Labour in the future, but not, of course, for any personal benefit.
In the US, several politicians in one state who changed their votes to approve gambling expansion were each given $100,000 by the gambling sector. I would prefer donation regulations to be far tighter everywhere.
Coinslot: On a last point, and it’s one I think we will probably be in agreement, although from opposite sides of the argument! Let’s look at the Gambling Commission and the government’s handling of the GAR. Is the Commission fit for purpose and has the Labour Party mismanaged the GAR?
Derek Webb: The 2005 Act is a pre-mobile, analogue Act for a digital age. The Commission is a creature of the Act, so it too is not fit for purpose.
The only Gambling Act Review measure that should have long term material benefit is the Statutory Levy. However, its introduction under Labour has been very poor in respect of prevention.
My view is that this is far wider than a moral question. The majority of the public, as identified by More in Common research, support constraints on high street gambling and reducing gambling harm is included in this government’s manifesto.
In fact, the polling showed that 44 percent would prefer shuttered premises to gambling premises, compared with 27 percent who expressed the reverse preference.
The government can proceed with confidence, ignoring financially vested interests and their misleading representations.
A detrimental standpoint
Derek Webb said… “All gambling activity is detrimental from a macroeconomic perspective.
This is only counterbalanced if tax rates are high enough and the costs of harm are low enough…
Need for speed?
Derek Webb said… “My primary concern relating to machines, and online slots, is that the speed is too fast. The average theoretical loss on a table game is around one stake per hour, whereas on a slot game it is around one stake per minute…
Originally published on Coinslot on August 31, 2026. Republished with permission.