Connect with us

Compliance Updates

Red Rake Gaming receives ISO/IEC 27001 certification



Red Rake Gaming receives ISO/IEC 27001 certification
Reading Time: < 1 minute


Premium casino content developer, Red Rake Gaming, has been awarded the coveted ISO/IEC 27001 certification after months of continuously working, underlining the supplier’s commitment to information security.

The ISO/IEC 27001 standard confirms that the global requirements for an Information Security Management System (ISMS) meets ISO’s exacting specification, and that all licensee and player information is secured and managed to the highest standards.
Red Rake Gaming commitment to security is an on-going process and the company will continue working hard to maintain and exceed ISO standards to protect both company and customer data.

The certification will enable Red Rake Gaming to continue its global expansion into regulated markets that use the ISO Certification as their regulation benchmark. Markets like Switzerland, where Red Rake Gaming will shortly make its debut and Greece, where ISO is a requirement to hold the HGC license.

Nick Barr, Managing Director for Red Rake Malta, commented: “We are delighted to have achieved the ISO 27001 certification. As we continue to expand our regulated market presence across the globe its vital that we have the highest standards to ensure swift and efficient market entry for our existing client expansion goals, not to mention accommodate the high demand from new operators in regulated markets. A huge well done to our dedicated and highly skilled technical team who managed to achieve the certification in record time.”

Compliance Updates

OKTO’s Market Ready PVR Wallet Officially Certified



Reading Time: < 1 minute


OKTO has announced that its innovative cash-to-digital payment solution, OKTO.PVR, has successfully obtained official certification from iTech Labs, a renowned independent testing laboratory. The OKTO.PVR wallet solution has been specifically tailored for the Italian Top-up Sales Points (PVR) market and is fully compliant with the latest PVR decree and published regulations.

The certification process involved comprehensive functional testing and a meticulous source code review to ensure full compliance with the stringent standards set forth by ADM (Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli), the primary regulatory body for gaming in Italy. OKTO.PVR met all relevant security, player protection and data registration requirements as per ADM standards ver 2.1. With this certification, the OKTO.PVR wallet solution is now market-ready and set to enhance the digital payment experience for users in the Italian PVR market.

The scope of the certification covers both deposit and withdrawal functionalities for online gaming websites and cash transactions within the retail network. Testing was conducted across multiple platforms to ensure compatibility with a wide range of devices, offering a seamless user experience.

OKTO.PVR addresses the demands of users who prefer offline transactions while enjoying online experiences. By bridging the gap between digital excitement and tangible cash transactions, OKTO.PVR offers a seamless fusion of modern gameplay and traditional financial interactions, aligned with regulatory standards.

Dante Micucci, Country Manager Italy at OKTO, said: “Achieving certification from iTech Labs is a significant milestone. This certification not only highlights our commitment to compliance and security but also reinforces our dedication to providing innovative payment solutions that cater to the unique needs of the Italian gaming market. OKTO.PVR is designed to offer convenience, security, and compliance, making it the ideal solution for both players and operators in Italy.”

Continue Reading


Philippine President Marcos Announces Ban on POGOs



Reading Time: < 1 minute


Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has banned the establishment of any new Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs), also known as Internet Gaming Licensees (IGLs), with immediate effect. Existing POGO operators will have until the end of the year to wind down their operations.

The verdict, not entirely unexpected, was delivered during his State of the Nation Address in Manila on Monday following widespread pressure from a Senate investigation into illegal POGO-linked activities.

“Effective today, all POGOs are banned. I hereby instruct [gaming regulator] PAGCOR to wind down and cease the operations of POGOs by the end of the year,” Marcos said in his SONA.

The decision to shut down POGOs follows a series of recent raids on illegal POGO compounds in Pampanga and Tarlac amid allegations they had been engaging in human trafficking and scam activities.

A full ban, proposed by multiple senators, had also gained the support of the Department of Finance (DOF) and the National Economic and Development Authority.

Continue Reading

Compliance Updates

Guidance on using statistics from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain



Guidance on using statistics from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain
Reading Time: 9 minutes


The guidance set out here is designed to help anyone who wishes to use data from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) to ensure it is reported correctly, this could include policy makers, academics, the gambling industry, the media, members of the public and any other interested users. It is produced in accordance with the Code of Practice for Statistics, Value 3.4 Clarity and Insight.

We have published this guidance because the official statistics from the GSGB are new and they are collected using a different methodology than previous official statistics. The guidance takes on board the recommendations from Professor Sturgis’s independent review of the GSGB and his analysis of the impact of the change in methodology.

We are aware that official statistics on gambling have previously been used in ways that they were not intended and, in some cases, the data was misused. Therefore it is important that users understand how the new official statistics from the GSGB can be used, what they should not be used for and where some caution should be applied. There are slightly different approaches for statistics relating to gambling participation and the consequences of gambling because of the smaller base sizes and greater margins of error for the statistics relating to the consequences of gambling.

Gambling participation

The GSGB can be used:

  • to look at patterns within the data amongst different demographic groups
  • to assess future trends and changes in gambling participation, measuring changes against the 2024 baseline
  • to compare patterns in gambling participation for England, Scotland and Wales and regionally where sample sizes allow.

The GSGB can be used with some caution (until further work is completed):

  • to provide estimates of gambling participation amongst adults (aged 18 and over) in Great Britain
  • to gross up gambling participation estimates for the whole population.

The GSGB should not be used to provide direct comparisons with results from prior gambling or health surveys.

Consequences of gambling

The GSGB can be used:

  • to look at patterns within the data amongst different demographic groups
  • to assess future trends and changes in consequences of gambling, measuring changes against the 2024 baseline
  • to compare patterns in consequences of gambling for England, Scotland and Wales and regionally where sample sizes allow
  • to describe the range of consequences that someone may experience as a result of someone’s own gambling and as a result of someone else’s gambling.

The GSGB can be used with some caution (until further work is completed):

  • to provide estimates of Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores amongst adults (aged 18 and over) in Great Britain
  • to provide estimates of the prevalence of consequences of gambling amongst adults (aged 18 and over) in Great Britain.

The GSGB should not be used:

  • to provide direct comparisons with results from prior gambling or health surveys
  • as a measure of addiction to gambling
  • to calculate an overall rate of gambling-related harm in Great Britain
  • to gross up the prevalence of problem gambling or the consequences of gambling to whole population (until further work is completed).

Comparability with previous surveys

Direct comparisons between the GSGB and previous surveys should not be used to assess trends over time

Due to differences in the way data for the GSGB is collected in comparison to prior gambling or health surveys, the GSGB is not directly comparable with results from previous surveys and direct comparisons should not be used to assess trends over time.

That said, some limited comparisons are useful to assess differences between study methodologies. All surveys are subject to a range of potential biases which may affect results. The GSGB, the prior health surveys and gambling surveys are no different.

The changes that have been made to the GSGB are outlined in the following table and include:

  • collection mode
  • questionnaire content
  • age coverage.
Differences between the GSGB and previous surveys used to collect official statistics related to gambling
Factor Gambling Survey for Great Britain Health Survey for England (HSE) Quarterly Telephone Survey
Collection mode Self completion: Push-to-web survey with paper-based alternative Interviewer led with self completion elements: Face-to-face (gambling questions asked in a self completion module but with interviewer and other household members present) Interviewer led: Telephone
Questionnaire content Gambling Health Gambling
Age coverage Adults aged 18 and over Adults aged 16 and over Adults aged 16 and over
Sample size 10,000 (Year 1)
20,000 (Year 2 onwards)
7,100 (HSE 2018) 4,000 per annum
Response rate 19% (Year 1) 59% (HSE 2018)
36% (HSE 2022)
Data currently unavailable
Geographic breakdown England, Wales and Scotland England England, Wales and Scotland

The annual GSGB report will be published 25 July 2024 and will represent the first year of a new baseline, against which future annual data from the GSGB can be compared. Smaller and more frequent publications will be available on a quarterly basis based on the data collected in the previous wave only. These ‘wave specific’ publications can be used to compare wave on wave trends throughout the year.

Impact of new methodology

There is a risk that the GSGB may overstate some gambling behaviours and therefore estimates should be used with some caution.

Further investigation of the possible reasons for this is needed to better quantify the scale and direction of impact upon the GSGB estimates and until this is completed, the statistics relating to the prevalence of problem gambling or the consequences of gambling should not be grossed up to whole population.

Whilst the move to a push-to-web survey was endorsed by Professor Patrick Sturgis in his independent review of the GSGB methodological approach and will enable to better detection and understanding of patterns and trends in gambling behaviour, he also urges due caution with the new statistics, “being mindful of the fact that there is a non-negligible risk that they substantially over state the true level of gambling and gambling harm in the population”.

There are several potential reasons for this increase in PGSI estimates as outlined by Sturgis in his review. This may relate to the lower response rates that the push-to-web design achieves. People who gamble, and those who gamble more heavily, may be more likely to complete the GSGB than those who do not gamble. As PSGI scores are higher for those with more gambling engagement, a lower response rate, potentially over representing those who gamble, would serve to increase reported PGSI scores.

Alternatively, prior surveys may have under-estimated PGSI scores and/or underestimated online gambling behaviours as a result of socially desirable responding. Sturgis noted that “there [were] good grounds to suggest the presence of an interviewer (as used by the [British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS)] BGPS and [Health Survey] HS series) induces a downward bias on estimates of the prevalence of gambling harm”.

It may also be that PGSI scores have actually increased in the population over time. Online gambling is strongly associated with elevated PGSI scores and gross gambling yield from online gambling has increased substantially since 2018. These changes in the gambling market could affect the PSGI scores estimated in the survey. All these things could be true, either alone or in combination.

In summary, as Sturgis notes, the two studies which have investigated possible factors for these changes in estimates were unable to come to a definitive estimate about the magnitude of the errors, and therefore uncertainty remains around which estimates (the GSGB or prior studies) are closer to the truth. Further investigation of the possible reasons for this is needed to better quantify the scale and direction of impact upon the GSGB estimates and until this is completed, the statistics relating to the prevalence of problem gambling or the consequences of gambling should not be grossed up to whole population.

Be careful reporting base numbers

Correctly reference whether statistics are based on all participants, or whether they are a subset of all participants such as people who have gambled in the last 12 months or participants who completed the online version of the survey.

The GSGB asks a range of questions some of which are applicable to all participants and some which are only applicable to people who have gambled.

Care should be taken when reporting statistics, particularly those relating to the PGSI to make sure you are correctly stating if the results are based on the views of all participants, or if they are based on people who have gambled. This is an area where we have previously seen misreporting.

This distinction is important as the first group includes people who have not gambled on any activity in the past year whereas the second group is based only on people who have gambled in the 12 months. In the report we have also included a third group which excludes people who have only taken part in lottery draws. This is because lotteries are so much more popular than any other form of gambling, so it can mask patterns of what’s going on with other types of gambling. For this reason, in the report we sometimes present findings excluding the people who have only taken part in a lottery draw and not taken part in any other type of gambling.

Through our stakeholder engagement we know that stakeholders are interested in multiple ways of presenting the data, for example at a population level including people who do not gamble and based on people who have gambled.

It is also worth noting that new questions in the GSGB about the wider consequences of gambling are all presented as a proportion of participants who have gambled in the past 12 months or as a proportion of participants who know someone close to them who gambles, so should be reported in this way. This is an example of how you should report the data:

“Of those who know someone close to them who gambles, x percent had experienced relationship breakdown because of someone else’s gambling.”

To ensure we can include all of the relevant content within the GSGB, core questions are asked on both the online and paper version of the survey whereas some topical or modular questions are only asked on the online version of the survey. The Commission will clearly label any statistics which are based on online responses only, and users should do the same.

Survey estimates

All surveys produce estimates rather than precise figures, users should be aware of confidence intervals.

The GSGB, in common with other surveys, collects information from a sample of the population. Consequently, statistics based on the survey are estimates, rather than precise figures, and are subject to a margin of error, also known as a 95 percent confidence interval. It would be expected that the true value of the statistic in the population would be within the range given by the 95 percent confidence interval in 95 cases out of 100. Confidence intervals are affected by the size of the sample on which the estimate is based. Generally, the larger the sample, the smaller the confidence interval, which results in a more precise estimate.

Confidence intervals should be taken into consideration by users, this is particularly true for PGSI estimates where base sizes can be small. We have provided confidence intervals for PGSI estimates within the data tables. Where differences are commented on in the annual report, these reflect the same degree of certainty that these differences are real, and not just within the margins of sampling error. These differences can be described as statistically significant.

Annual versus wave specific data

In a typical year there will be four wave specific publications from the GSGB plus an annual publication. Where possible, the annual data should be used as the priority with wave specific data being used when you want to look at patterns of gambling participation within a year, or where modular questions have only been asked in certain waves.

The GSGB collects data continuously throughout the year. Survey data will be available:

  • on a quarterly basis via wave specific publications
  • annually where data for the calendar year will be combined to provide a more detailed breakdown.

Annual datasets will be published to UK Data Service (opens new tab).

We recommend using annual data as the default as this will be based on a large sample size (10,000 in Year 1 and 20,000 from Year 2 onwards) and will allow for more analysis at sub population level. This is also how we will track trends over time. Annual publications will include findings on the consequences of gambling.

Wave specific data should be used if you need data for a specific time period, and to track trends or patterns within a calendar year. These publications will focus predominately on participation in gambling in that time period.


Use a person centric approach when reporting statistics about gambling.

Do not stigmatise or victimise those people experiencing adverse consequences from gambling.

Do not describe PGSI as a measure of gambling addiction.

The language we use matters. People who gamble are defined by more than their actions when they gamble. That is why we recommend a “person-centric” or “person first” approach. Whilst taking this new approach may use more words, it is important in lowering stigma and barriers to people seeking help for gambling addiction.

For example, instead of writing “x percent of gamblers…”, you can write “x percent of people who gamble…”.

The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) consists of nine questions which measure both behavioural symptoms of gambling disorder and certain adverse consequences from gambling. The PGSI should not be confused with a measure of gambling addiction. More information on how the PGSI is measured can be found here.

Wider evidence base

The GSGB is one source of data in the Commission’s wider evidence base.

The Gambling Commission uses a range of data, research and insights to inform the decisions that we make and provide advice to the Government about gambling behaviour and the gambling market. To be the most effective regulator possible, we require a robust evidence base. The GSGB forms one source of evidence for our evidence base and should be considered alongside a wealth of other evidence and information which we use to fill our evidence gaps and priorities 2023 to 2026.

If statistics are used incorrectly

We encourage people to use our statistics to support understanding of important issues related to gambling.

We expect that anyone using our official statistics should present the data accurately and in accordance with the guidelines presented here. This includes ensuring that the data is not taken out of context, manipulated, or presented in a way that could materially mislead others.

Continue Reading
Alpha Affiliates



Launch your iGaming business swiftly and effortlessly with our comprehensive turnkey solutions


Trending (Top 7)

Get it on Google Play is a premier online platform that serves as a leading information hub for the gaming and gambling industry. This industry-centric media outlet reaches over 200,000 readers monthly, providing them with compelling content, the latest news, and deep-dive insights.

Offering comprehensive coverage on all aspects of the gaming sector, includes online and land-based gaming, betting, esports, regulatory and compliance updates, and technological advancements. Regular features encompass daily news articles, press releases, exclusive interviews, and insightful event reports.

The platform also hosts industry-relevant virtual meetups and conferences, and provides detailed reports, making it a one-stop resource for anyone seeking information about operators, suppliers, regulators, and professional services in the European gaming market. The portal's primary goal is to keep its extensive reader base updated on the latest happenings, trends, and developments within the gaming and gambling sector, with an emphasis on the European market while also covering pertinent global news. It's an indispensable resource for gaming professionals, operators, and enthusiasts alike.

Contact us: [email protected]

Editorial / PR Submissions: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 - 2024 - European Gaming is part of HIPTHER. Registered in Romania under Proshirt SRL, Company number: 2134306, EU VAT ID: RO21343605. Office address: Blvd. 1 Decembrie 1918 nr.5, Targu Mures, Romania

We are constantly showing banners about important news regarding events and product launches. Please turn AdBlock off in order to see these areas.