Tip of the iceberg: Should betting tipsters be held to account?

The Cheltenham Festival rarely passes without controversy, but this year’s debate has moved beyond race results and bookmaker margins. Instead, some portion of the spotlight has fallen on a different part of the betting ecosystem: tipsters.

In the days surrounding the Festival, social media once again filled with accounts claiming huge wins, often accompanied by screenshots of betting slips or celebratory videos from racecourses. Critics, however, have pointed to a recurring issue – the selective presentation of results. Some tipsters are accused of recording multiple predictions or betting slips and only publishing the winning outcomes, while quietly deleting or ignoring the losses.

The controversy has reignited an old question for the gambling industry: should betting tipsters be regulated or held more accountable for what they publish?

How has the tipster ecosystem grown, and why is it largely unregulated?

Tipsters are hardly a new phenomenon. For decades, newspapers, specialist publications and racing broadcasters have offered betting advice to readers. In many cases, these analysts built reputations through transparency and long-term track records.

The modern tipster economy, however, looks very different. Social media platforms such as X, Telegram, TikTok and Instagram have enabled thousands of individuals to distribute betting tips directly to large audiences, often monetising their following through subscription groups, affiliate links or paid “VIP” channels.

Unlike licensed operators, these individuals typically operate outside formal regulatory oversight. In the UK, the advertising framework overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) does provide guidance around betting tipster marketing – such as requiring proof of past results and prohibiting claims of guaranteed success – but the rules largely apply only when tipsters are advertising services rather than simply posting opinions or predictions online.

As a result, a substantial portion of tipster activity sits in a grey area.

Why is selective reporting such a problem in the tipster market?

The Cheltenham debate has highlighted a problem that many industry stakeholders say has been growing for years: the difficulty of verifying tipster performance. This applies to all sports, particularly football, as well as horseracing.

One common criticism is “result cherry-picking” – a practice where tipsters showcase winning bets while hiding losing selections. In the social media era, this can be as simple as deleting posts or editing betting slips after events have concluded.

More sophisticated tactics also exist. Some tipsters allegedly distribute different predictions to multiple private groups, then promote whichever group happened to receive the winning outcome. From the outside, the public-facing feed appears to demonstrate an impressive strike rate, even if the overall performance is far less impressive.

Screenshots of winning bets are another widely criticised tactic. Because betting slips can be easily edited or fabricated, industry observers warn they offer little credible evidence of long-term success.

For operators and affiliates, this lack of transparency can be problematic. When bettors follow inaccurate or misleading advice and lose money, frustration can ultimately be directed toward the bookmaker rather than the tipster.

Do tipster-operator relationships create conflicts of interest?

Another source of concern lies in the commercial relationships between tipsters and operators.

Many tipsters generate revenue through affiliate partnerships with bookmakers. Under these arrangements, tipsters earn commission when followers sign up to betting platforms and place wagers.

Critics argue that this can create an inherent conflict of interest: a tipster publicly presenting themselves as a betting expert while simultaneously earning revenue from the activity of their audience.

Normally, a revenue-share agreement would be nothing unusual in gambling. But tipsters deliberately pushing losing bets (and betting for free if funded by third parties) – is not a good look for influencer marketing within the sector.

Industry commentators have long warned that this dynamic risks blurring the line between genuine analysis and marketing. In extreme cases, allegations have emerged that some tipsters deliberately promote high-risk bets or accumulators that are statistically unlikely to win but generate higher betting volume.

While these claims do not apply to the entire sector, they highlight why the question of accountability continues to surface.

Why is regulating tipsters so difficult?

Despite the criticisms regulating tipsters is far from straightforward. For one thing, betting predictions themselves are not illegal. Expressing an opinion about the outcome of a sporting event – whether in a newspaper column, a podcast or a social media post – is generally protected speech.

This creates a regulatory dilemma. Drawing a clear boundary between “editorial opinion” and commercial gambling promotion can be difficult, particularly when tipsters blend the two.

There is also the question of proportionality. Regulators already oversee licensed operators, advertising standards and responsible gambling measures. Extending similar obligations to thousands of individual tipsters would require significant enforcement resources.

In addition, many tipsters operate internationally, meaning jurisdictional challenges could limit the effectiveness of national regulation.

Is transparency a better solution than regulation?

Rather than formal regulation, some industry stakeholders argue that greater transparency standards could offer a more practical solution.

One widely discussed option is mandatory “proofing” – the independent verification of betting tips before events take place. Under this model, tipsters would register their selections with a neutral third party, creating a timestamped record that could later be audited.

Advertising guidance already encourages tipsters to substantiate claims about past results with independently verified records. Expanding this principle more broadly across the sector could help distinguish credible analysts from opportunistic operators.

Affiliate programmes may also play a role. Operators could require partners who present themselves as tipsters to demonstrate transparent performance records or adhere to marketing standards.

Some bookmakers already impose restrictions on affiliate messaging related to betting success rates or guaranteed returns. Applying similar expectations to tipster partnerships could reduce the risk of misleading promotions.

What risks do tipsters pose to the wider gambling industry?

The issue extends beyond individual tipsters. It also touches on the broader reputation of the gambling sector.

At a time when regulators and policymakers are scrutinising gambling marketing practices, viral social media content showing apparent “easy wins” can undermine responsible gambling messaging.

If bettors perceive that misleading tipster content is widespread and unchecked, it may reinforce arguments from critics that stronger oversight of the industry is required.

In that sense, the debate is not simply about consumer protection – it is also about maintaining credibility within a highly regulated sector.

Finding the balance

Not all tipsters deserve criticism. Many analysts, particularly those working in traditional media or established racing publications, provide thoughtful analysis and openly track their long-term results.

The challenge lies in distinguishing these legitimate voices from those exploiting social media algorithms and betting hype.

The Cheltenham Festival controversy has brought this issue back into focus. While full regulatory oversight may be unrealistic, the discussion around accountability is unlikely to disappear.

As the tipster economy continues to grow alongside digital betting communities, the industry may need to consider how transparency, affiliate standards and independent verification can evolve to keep pace.

Otherwise, the gap between regulated gambling and unregulated betting advice could become an increasingly uncomfortable one.