Bet365 · UX Audit · Responsible Gambling Redesign · 2026
Bet365 makes it harder to set a deposit limit than to place a bet. Here's the audit and the fix
Role: UX Researcher and Designer
Type: UX Audit · Concept Redesign · Responsible Gambling
Tools: Figma · User Interviews
Year: 2026
The context
Bet365 is fully compliant with Irish and EU gambling regulations. Every required tool exists. The problem is that the platform is designed so that finding them requires more effort than placing a bet. That is not an accident. It is a design decision. This audit documents it and proposes three targeted interventions.
This is not an accident. It is a design decision. And it has consequences.
User research
Before designing anything, I needed to understand whether the friction was visible to users or invisible to them. I conducted 10 interviews with regular users across four platforms: Bet365, Betano, Blaze and H2bet. The focus was not on opinions about the platform.
It was on behaviour: how they actually used it, what they had never noticed, and what they had looked for and failed to find.
"I didn't know you could set a limit. Where is that?"
"Yes, right after losing I went and bet again."
"A spending graph that's easier to find, without having to dig into a separate tab."
One participant mentioned fear of addiction as a barrier to using the platform at all, citing friends who had lost significant amounts in loss-chasing cycles. This represents a user Bet365 is actively losing because the platform offers no visible signal that spending is being tracked or protected. The Meter addresses this directly.
Design asymmetry
The platform adds friction where it protects users, and removes it where it benefits the business.
Auditing the current flow
I mapped the current flow to reach the deposit limit feature on Bet365 from the homepage. Four steps, two external windows and one login barrier stand between the user and a tool they are legally entitled to use. Each step is an opportunity to abandon the process and most users do.
There is also a revealing asymmetry in the design: decreasing a deposit limit is immediate. Increasing it requires a 7-day waiting period and manual confirmation. The platform adds friction where it protects users and removes it where it benefits the platform.
The button is hidden amidst so many flashy colors and suggestive buttons.
Clicking the link opens a separate website. The user has left the platform entirely — a context break that makes the process feel unfamiliar and untrustworthy.
A second window opens on top of the first. Two layers of navigation to reach a tool that should be one tap away.
The user must log in again to access their own spending settings — the highest friction point at the exact moment someone might need help most.
The redesign: three targeted interventions
The most effective engagement mechanics in mobile gaming use intentional friction, daily limits, cooldown periods, reward streaks, not to reduce usage, but to make it sustainable. Gambling platforms have access to the same design toolkit. They choose not to use it.
Rather than redesigning the entire platform, I focused on three targeted interventions. Each addresses one specific failure identified in the audit and the research.
Before / After
Before: No session feedback. The user bets with no awareness of how much they have spent .
After: A persistent spending bar shows real-time progress. One glance is enough.
Before: At 70% of bankroll, the platform does nothing. The user keeps going. After: Deposits pause for 12 hours. A bonus for tomorrow turns a stop into a reason to return.
Before: 4 steps, 2 external windows, 1 login barrier. Most users give up before arriving here. After: One tap from the main navigation. No redirects, no extra login, no friction.
How I'd measure success
Since this is a concept project, I defined success metrics before designing. This is how measurement should work in UX hypotheses first, solutions second.
Primary: Percentage of active users who set at least one spending limit within 30 days of onboarding.
Secondary: Reduction in steps to reach deposit limit settings, from 4 to 1.
Acquisition: Reduction in drop-off from users who cite fear of addiction as a barrier to registering. Research showed at least 1 in 10 users in this study fit this profile.
Guardrail: No measurable decrease in session frequency or deposit volume. The goal is sustainable retention, not reduced engagement.
What I'd do differently...
Hypotheses before solutions. These are the metrics I would instrument from day one, defined before any design decision was made.
I would also test whether the 12-hour pause creates shame or frustration at a vulnerable moment. The intention is protective but the emotional impact could go either way. That hypothesis needed usability testing before any implementation.
The intention is clear. The emotional impact is a hypothesis that needed validation before shipping.