Channelisation

Channelisation is the single most contested number in gambling policy, because it converts every argument about restriction into an argument about consequence. A regulator tightening deposit limits, advertising rules or affordability checks is asking players to accept a less attractive licensed product; if the unlicensed market is one search away, some share of them leave rather than comply. A market at 95% channelisation can absorb a strict measure. One at 60% may simply be exporting its own customers.

The difficulty is that nobody can measure it directly. Licensed activity is reported to regulators, and unlicensed activity is by definition not, so every estimate depends on modelling: traffic to offshore domains, payment flows, survey self-reporting or market-intelligence platforms. Regulators and industry bodies routinely publish figures for the same market that differ by twenty percentage points or more, and each side quotes the methodology that suits it. A channelisation claim is therefore only as good as its stated method, and a figure offered without one should be treated as advocacy.

The policy asymmetry matters too. Restrictions apply only to licensees, because they are the only operators a regulator can reach. Measures that make the licensed product worse without disrupting the unlicensed one raise the barrier at the wrong end of the market.