DATA.BET on evolving risk strategies in betting

Risk management remains one of the most sensitive aspects of business for operators, often believing that outsourcing this function will impose financial limits and restrict players. But in fact, professional teams work with greater accuracy, imposing limitations only where it is truly necessary. Here, I’ll outline why this is and how operators risk losing 30% of their revenue by relying on their own in-house systems.

Where operator hesitation comes from

Risk management is one of the most sensitive areas in sportsbook operations. Many operators hesitate to trust potential providers. Their concerns are less about the technology and more about control, transparency and long-term business impact, often of the belief that no external team can understand their business well enough to make revenue, retention and player satisfaction decisions.

Several concerns dominate. The most common fear is losing VIP players. Operators worry that the external team may apply financial limits, cutting off valuable bettors instead of focusing on fraudulent activity, which leads to revenue loss. Beyond money, there’s the brand factor. If VIPs or high-value bettors feel mistreated due to excessive restrictions or misjudged limits, they might leave permanently. Operators fear reputational damage more than short-term margin loss.

Another point is that betting limits might be set too broadly, or decisions may be made without understanding the local market context. Providers are sometimes seen as applying the same strategy without considering local specifics, player behaviour or business strategy. This makes operators afraid that risk management will stifle growth as opposed to protect it.

Data sharing also matters. Trusting an external provider requires opening access to detailed player information. Many operators fear losing control over their data or exposing themselves to compliance risks. As a result, they keep risk management in-house, even when it creates operational inefficiencies. However, without proper expertise, this often means wasted time and lost profit, taking the focus away from growth and staying competitive.

Behind these fears lies a deeper issue: operators often feel that providers do not listen closely enough. If limits are imposed without explanation or local market specifics are overlooked, the sense of losing control becomes too strong. However, risk management is not just a technical function – it is the backbone of stability, profitability and sustainability. Its scope goes far beyond monitoring financial exposure, covering betting integrity, fraud prevention, competitor analysis and even correcting trader errors to protect operators from unnecessary losses.

Different paths of risk control 

Every provider in the industry looks for its own way to balance transparency, control and efficiency. At DATA.BET, we have developed two approaches. The first, Advisory Mode, emphasises reporting and visibility. Operators send already accepted or settled bets back to us, which allows for distribution monitoring, detecting unusual activity and adjusting lines for the future. Technical errors, outdated odds or suspicious activity remain entirely on the operator’s side, often resulting in financial losses that cannot be reversed. Advisory Mode provides visibility and invoicing support but does not shield operators from live risks. Usually, many companies choose this method for the reasons outlined above.

The second option, Full Risk Management, goes further. Every bet request is processed before it is accepted, allowing the system to reject or adjust bets when odds are outdated, markets are imbalanced or suspicious activity is detected. This mechanism protects operators against losses caused by feed delays, technical lags or betting forks.

Beyond the technology, the added strength lies in the risk management team itself. Automation enhances this process by tracking player patterns and applying restrictions automatically when necessary. This synergy allows nearly all risk cases to be covered effectively, with automation accounting for around 50% of detected and managed cases across client operations. Their work covers financial monitoring, settlement accuracy, line stability, competitor analysis, profiling player behaviour and responding to trader queries.

They investigate anomalies, assess potential fraud patterns and provide predictive insights to anticipate risks before they escalate. Risk managers step in when a match goes live and continue to monitor player activity from the very first bet.

As a result, we noticed that operators that integrate Full Risk Management achieve up to 30% higher revenue compared to those relying only on their in-house systems.

Winning combo: expertise and control 

What makes risk management truly effective is not technology alone, but the combination of trading expertise, domain-specific knowledge and data-driven controls.

This factor is even more critical in esports. Hiring a professional trader for traditional sports is relatively straightforward, but finding one with deep expertise in esports is far more complex. We have dedicated trading teams for esports, with specialists who know how to set and balance the line and understand where fraud hides and legitimate trading activity occurs.

This is where the synergy with risk management becomes essential. A separate risk department continuously monitors player activity using automated and manual processes. Experienced risk managers identify suspicious betting patterns, detect unusual user behaviour and act on potential fraud signals. They can adjust or limit specific users if necessary, leaving the broader market unaffected.

This combination allows traders to focus on building accurate, competitive lines. At the same time, risk managers act as a safeguard, ensuring that unexpected patterns, arbitrage attempts or fraudulent strategies are controlled in real time. The outcome: VIPs and high-value players are not unnecessarily restricted, while genuinely risky profiles are controlled with precision.

The consequence of this dual approach is a flexible, efficient and profitable operating model where traders focus on market accuracy and risk managers ensure integrity and protection. Together, they form the winning formula behind stable margins and sustainable growth.

The effectiveness of this dual approach is reflected in performance: over the past year, 82% of total turnover comes from operators using the Full Risk Management service. For operators, partnering with a team proves more effective as it allows them to start generating profit from the first days of integration while building long-term stability, protecting margins and ensuring sustainable growth.

Choosing the right approach

Every operator faces the same question: is handling risk internally more effective than entrusting it to a provider’s expertise? The answer often depends on internal strategy, resources and readiness to share operational data.

Managing risk internally gives operators visibility to monitor performance and evaluate long-term trends. Entrusting risk management to providers goes even further – delivering real-time protection, proactive fraud detection and the flexibility to respond instantly to changing conditions.

Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether a company prefers to handle risks internally or rely on providers combining trading expertise with adaptive tools. Entrusting risk management to specialists allows operators to minimise unnecessary restrictions, respond faster to market challenges and maintain profitability in challenging conditions.

Both paths remain valid, but in an increasingly competitive market, flexibility, precision and professional oversight are the factors that define long-term success.

Alexander Bezdolnyi is head of risk management at DATA.BET. He has background over six years in antifraud and risk analysis.

In his current role, he develops automation systems and optimised workflows that combine expert insight with technology, boosting partner profit margins by up to 30%.