Bookmaker’s algorithm failed to see ‘red flags in gambling addict’s behaviour’
Father-of-two Luke Ashton took his own life after losing thousands of pounds while gambling.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A betting company’s algorithm that was supposed to identify customers at risk of harm failed to see “red flags” in the behaviour of a gambling addict who went on to take his own life, an economist has told an inquest.
Luke Ashton, 40, had become “consumed” by gambling and had lost thousands of pounds in the months before he died on April 22 2021, with his activity on betting website Betfair spiking.
On Wednesday, a hearing at the coroner’s office for Leicester and South Leicestershire was told Mr Ashton, from Leicester, had been gambling more than 100 times a day, including early in the morning and late at night when his wife Annie was asleep.
On Friday, economist and gambling expert Professor David Forrest, who completed a report for the inquest, said he believed Betfair – an operator that Mr Ashton had been a customer with since 2012 – had failed to identify that he was at risk of harm.
Despite what Professor Forrest described as “red flags” in Mr Ashton’s betting activity, including the number and frequency of his bets and the increasing amount of money he was depositing and losing, Betfair’s machine-learning algorithm that is run every day to analyse the behaviour of its customers did not identify him as being at risk.
At the hearing on Thursday, Richard Clarke, managing director at Betfair’s parent company Flutter with responsibilities for customer experience and customer relations, said it was clear the firm could have done more at the time.
If the model had flagged Mr Ashton as being at risk, a number of further steps could have been taken, including a phone assessment to discuss his behaviour and betting patterns or a forced ban on his account.
Instead, Mr Ashton was deemed a low risk and as such, only had automated “awareness” emails sent to him.
The emails, of which eight had been sent to Mr Ashton over the period being examined by the coroner, would ask him to consider things like how much time he spent on the Betfair site and whether he wanted to take a time out.
Professor Forrest determined Betfair should have taken “stronger action based on the evolution of his betting”.
He told the hearing, which has been attended every day by Mr Ashton’s wife and other family members, that he was “very surprised” the activity had not been picked up by Betfair’s algorithm.
He said there had been a clear “escalation” in Mr Ashton’s betting activity in February 2021 and in March, he was putting down substantially larger bets and there was evidence he was trying to chase his losses.
On March 5 2021, there was reasons to believe Mr Ashton had “lost control” with “excessive time spent and higher bets”.
At the end of March, Betfair sent Mr Ashton another automated email asking him if he wanted to take a time out, despite there being days when he would place more than 100 bets.
Professor Forrest said these interventions had been “weak” and suggested if a human had been involved in the risk-identifying process, rather than relying on an algorithm, more appropriate steps may have been taken to protect Mr Ashton.
He said: “There could have been an option to discuss self-exclusion over the phone, to get some background on what was happening as he may have been experiencing harm, or a forced exclusion.”
He said Betfair had not been “significantly curious” about its customers’ background or behaviour and that the threshold for identifying harm was too high.
Representing Flutter, Philip Kolvin KC said lowering the threshold could have placed an “unmanageable” load on the company and would have resulted in a number of false positives and negatives.
Betfair says it is confident the company complied with the rules and the regulatory framework in place at the time, but accepted that changes have now been made that would prevent a customer in Mr Ashton’s circumstances from being able to repeat the same pattern of betting.
It was confirmed at the end of Friday’s hearing that Mr Ashton died as a result of hanging. The day before he was found dead, he had sent a message to his wife saying the company he was doing part-time delivery work for had asked him to go to Scotland and he needed to turn his phone off to save battery.
The next day, Mrs Ashton reported him missing to the police and his colleagues confirmed he had not been asked to go to Scotland.
His phone was tracked to an AirBnB flat he had rented in South Yorkshire where his body was found.
The inquest was due to finish on Friday but due to schedule delays, will continue on a date that has yet to be decided.
– Anyone who needs support can call Samaritans free of charge on 116 123, email jo@samaritans.org, or visit the Samaritans website.