ArticleJournal of behavioral addictions2026
Predicting problem gambling among online sports and race bettors: Assessing the value of machine learning using behavioural and self-reported data.
Article in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Online gambling operators collect detailed behavioural data that can identify customers at risk of harmful gambling. However, there is limited clarity on how to optimally achieve this in practice, including which variables are most useful and whether short-term data windows are sufficient for risk detection. These details are increasingly important as regulatory frameworks emphasise timely intervention. We examined the value of machine learning in this context by comparing models trained on 30 days versus six months of behavioural data and exploring whether incorporating survey responses enhanced performance. Methods: Customers from two Australian sports and race betting sites (N = 1,470) completed a survey including the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) and measures of employment, income, gambling satisfaction, and number of gambling accounts. We built machine learning models to classify participants into risk groups (PGSI 1-7 [no-to-moderate-risk] vs. PGSI≥8 [high-risk]), comparing performance across data windows (30 days vs. six months), and with or without survey variables. Results: Models using only behavioural data achieved adequate classification accuracy (AUROC = 0.74-0.75), with similar performance across 30-day and six-month windows. The most predictive account-based variables were age, deposits per active day, average stake, and days since betting. Combining behavioural data with self-reported variables enhanced performance (AUROC = 0.76-0.85). Two self-reported variables-number of gambling accounts held and gambling satisfaction-were primarily responsible for these improvements. Conclusions: Machine learning models can detect at-risk customers on online sports and race betting sites using only 30 days of behavioural data. Performance can be improved by adding minimal, non-intrusive self-report measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.