In-play betting — also known as live betting — has become one of the most dangerous forms of modern sports gambling.
Unlike traditional pre-match wagers, in-play betting allows users to place bets during a sporting event, often under time pressure and emotional arousal.
In In-Play Betting, Sport Broadcasts, and Gambling Severity (Lopez-Gonzalez, Griffiths, & Estévez, 2018), the authors uncover how fast-paced, impulsive, and emotionally charged betting environments create ideal conditions for problem gambling behavior.
While the study does not prove a causal link between in-play betting and gambling addiction, it shows a strong correlation between the two — with problem gamblers disproportionately drawn to this form of betting.
Key Concepts
1. The Nature of In-Play Betting
In-play betting enables gamblers to bet on unfolding moments in a match — who will score next, what the next play will be, or how a set will end.
This format transforms sports viewing into a continuous cycle of decision-making, where each play offers a new wagering opportunity.
The key psychological mechanisms include:
- Speed and frequency of bets,
- Sense of urgency driven by time-sensitive odds,
- Reduced cognitive control, and
- Auto-pilot decision-making based on impulse rather than reflection.
“The frequency of in-play betting was significantly related to the severity of gambling problems.”
Because betting occurs in real-time, players often act without calculating risks or assessing financial consequences — a hallmark of impulsive gambling.
2. The Strong Link to Problem Gambling
Although causality cannot be established, correlational evidence is overwhelming:
- Heavy gamblers are far more likely than casual bettors to participate in in-play markets.
- In-play bettors report higher problem gambling severity, greater impulsivity, and shorter betting histories (Hing et al., 2018).
- Certain operators — such as Bet365 — derive up to 80% of total revenue from in-play betting, underscoring its financial potency and addictive appeal.
“British Gambling Commission declared that in-play betting had changed formerly ‘slow’ forms of betting into rapid, potentially harm-inducing types of gambling.”
The structural design of in-play betting — fast, dynamic, and interactive — mirrors other high-frequency gambling forms, such as electronic gaming machines and online casino play.
3. Behavioral Triggers: Urgency, Emotion, and Escapism
The appeal of in-play betting lies in its emotional immediacy.
Live sports trigger physiological arousal (adrenaline, excitement), and the option to wager amplifies this energy into impulsive action.
Problem gamblers often describe a state of “flow” or disconnection, where decisions occur reflexively:
- “Auto-pilot” behavior replaces deliberate reasoning.
- Bets are placed to prolong excitement, rather than to maximize rational profit.
- The constant engagement sustains emotional involvement, preventing bettors from disengaging from the game.
The study also finds that problem gamblers tend to bet while watching alone, using gambling as a coping mechanism for escape, control, or companionship.
Some report physical attraction to athletes or emotional identification with teams, reinforcing compulsive engagement.
4. Psychological Mechanisms Behind Risk
The behavioral science behind in-play betting involves several overlapping biases:
| Bias | Description |
|---|---|
| Optimism Bias | Fans overestimate their team’s chances of winning (Massey, Simmons, & Armor, 2011). |
| Hedging Against Loss | Some bettors wager against their favorite team to soften emotional defeat (Agha & Tyler, 2017). |
| Illusion of Control | Bettors believe their “expert knowledge” improves odds, when outcomes remain random (Lopez-Gonzalez et al., 2017). |
| Continuous Reinforcement | Fast feedback cycles (win/loss) mirror slot-machine behavior, rewarding frequent engagement. |
Each mechanism fuels perceived competence, reinforcing betting as a habitual part of sports consumption.
5. The Demographics of In-Play Bettors
In the Spanish sample analyzed, problem gamblers were more likely to:
- Live with a partner,
- Watch sports frequently,
- Bet while watching alone, and
- Report escapism and high emotional involvement.
While these traits overlap with general gambling populations, in-play bettors exhibit stronger cognitive distortions — such as believing they can anticipate outcomes based on “reading the game.”
6. Media, Second Screens, and Constant Exposure
In Western countries, in-play betting has evolved alongside multi-screen sports consumption.
Fans commonly use a “second screen” (phone or tablet) while watching sports broadcasts, creating a 24/7 gateway for betting engagement.
“Sports spectators are subject to continuous marketing stimuli to bet on sports.”
Advertising, live odds overlays, and real-time updates form an ecosystem of perpetual temptation, blurring the line between watching and wagering.
7. Policy Concerns and Ethical Implications
The British Gambling Commission and similar authorities have expressed growing concern that in-play betting has transformed slower, safer betting forms into rapid, harm-inducing gambling products.
Public health implications include:
- Elevated risk of impulsive and compulsive gambling,
- Increased time and money spent per gambling session, and
- Normalization of betting during live events.
Regulators face the challenge of balancing consumer freedom with harm prevention, particularly as betting is marketed as a form of sports entertainment rather than gambling.
Summary of Findings
| Category | Observation |
|---|---|
| Gambling Type | In-play (live) betting — betting during live sporting events |
| Psychological Triggers | Urgency, impulsivity, optimism bias, illusion of control |
| Risk Factors | High frequency, high expenditure, impaired self-control |
| Behavioral Patterns | “Auto-pilot” betting, emotional engagement, solitary play |
| Demographic Correlates | Younger, male, emotionally attached sports fans |
| Industry Impact | Up to 80% of operator revenue linked to in-play betting |
| Policy Implications | Need for marketing restrictions, live-betting limits, and harm reduction measures |
Academic Reference
Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Griffiths, M., & Estévez, A. (2018). In-Play Betting, Sport Broadcasts, and Gambling Severity: A Survey Study of Spanish Sports Bettors on the Risks of Betting on Sport While Watching It. Communication & Sport, 8.
External References
- Agha, N., & Tyler, B. D. (2016). An investigation of highly identified fans who bet against their favorite teams. Sport Management Review, 20.
- Braverman, J., LaPlante, D., Nelson, S., & Shaffer, H. (2013). Using cross-game behavioral markers for early identification of high-risk internet gamblers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27.
- Hing, N., Li, E., Vitartas, P., & Russell, A. (2018). On the spur of the moment: Intrinsic predictors of impulse sports betting. Journal of Gambling Studies, 34, 413–428.
- Hing, N., Russell, A., Vitartas, P., & Lamont, M. (2015). Demographic, behavioural and normative risk factors for gambling problems amongst sports bettors. Journal of Gambling Studies.
- Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Estévez, A., & Griffiths, M. (2017). Controlling the illusion of control: A grounded theory of sports betting advertising in the UK. International Gambling Studies, 18, 1–17.
- Massey, C., Simmons, J., & Armor, D. (2010). Hope Over Experience: Desirability and the Persistence of Optimism. SSRN Electronic Journal.