The top 10 gambling sites in 2026 are the ones that publish their limits — minimum and maximum stakes, deposit caps, withdrawal ceilings and the terms attached to each. On a British Gambling Commission licence those limits are constrained by rule; offshore they are whatever the operator's terms say, and the difference is worth more attention than any bonus headline.
A list of the top 10 gambling sites uk players actually search for is a strange document. Every version of it promises the same thing — better odds, bigger bonuses, faster money — and almost none of them tells you the one thing that decides whether a session ends well: the limits. How much you may stake on a single spin. How much you may put in before someone asks a question. How much you may take out, and how long the site is allowed to sit on it. Those numbers are published, they are comparable, and they are the only honest basis for ranking anything.
I have read a great many of these terms. The pattern is consistent. Sites that hold a Gambling Commission licence carry a floor of consumer protection imposed from outside, and the size of the deposit puts an arithmetic ceiling over what a player can lose. Offshore, no such floor exists. Set against that, a handful of offshore operators publish terms that are genuinely clear — and a larger number publish terms that look clear until a withdrawal is requested.
playinsideruk.com looks at this market through one lens: limits on stakes, deposits and withdrawals. That is the angle for this page — as of 13.11.2026, the rulebook is the story. British-licensed sites set the standard. Offshore sites are measured against it, the tidy ones and the shabby ones alike. One note before the numbers, because it misleads people regularly: the scheme is called GamStop, though it is often typed "gamestop", and it appears in this article only where the law puts it.
Table of Contents14
- Where the Limits Come From
- Top 10 UK Gambling Sites and The Offline Standard
- Top 10 Online Gambling Sites Offshore and The Same Interface
- How Limits Compare by Type of Cap
- How Identity Checks Affect Withdrawal Speed
- How to Judge a Gambling Site
- A Practical Way to Rank Them Yourself
- How Crypto Gambling Sites Handle Limits
- What Gambling Rules Travel and What Does Not
- How Delays Are Built Into Terms
- Skin Betting and Anecdotes
- The Limits at the Two Ends of the Market
- Questions I Get Asked About These Lists
- Limits, Not Lists, Are the Ranking
Where the Limits Come From
The benchmark is checkable, which is why I use it. From 31 October 2025, every gambling business licensed in Great Britain must prompt a customer to set a financial limit before their first deposit, and must offer that limit through a free-text box at account level — a figure the player chooses, not a menu. Under the technical standard RTS 12E, setting a limit is the default path and a customer has to take a positive action to decline one and confirm that refusal. Reminders to review account and transaction information follow every six months.
That is a real change. A limit imposed at the point of first deposit is a limit set before the session's arithmetic has been rewritten by a run of losses. Offshore operators are under no such obligation. Some ask; many do not; a few actively make the question hard to find. The Commission's own figures show why the deposit side matters: financial vulnerability checks, required on remote licensees from August 2024, began at £500 of net deposits over a rolling 30 days and were lowered to £150 net deposits over 30 days with effect from 28 February 2025. Offshore, no threshold exists at all unless the operator invents one.
Then there is the withdrawal side, where the British record is good and not perfect. Commission data covering June to September 2024, drawn from large online operators, records 44.2 million withdrawals in the period; 96.3 per cent cleared automatically and 3.5 per cent within 24 hours. Only 0.1 per cent took up to 48 hours. And yet the Commission's own Contact Centre has repeatedly named withdrawal problems its number one consumer complaint, and its Annual Report for 2024-25 says withdrawal issues continue to cause most of the complaints it receives. Both facts are true. That is the uncomfortable bit: the typical case is fast, the tail is long, and the tail is where the money is.
Top 10 UK Gambling Sites and The Offline Standard
The phrase top 10 uk gambling sites usually means the licensed market, and the licensed market is the one with the hard edges. Remote Casino, Betting and Bingo operators generated £8.3 billion of gross gambling yield in the year to March 2026, up 6.9 per cent, out of £17.5 billion for the whole industry. Within that, remote casino is the sector the Commission rates as high risk for money laundering, unchanged in its 2026 assessment. Big, taxed, watched.
The limit that bites hardest on stakes is the newest. From 9 April 2025 a £5 maximum stake per game cycle applies to online slots for all adults; from 21 May 2025 the figure is £2 for players aged 18 to 24. A minimum of 2.5 seconds must elapse between game cycles, under RTS 14D. These caps cover slots only — roulette and blackjack are untouched — which means a player who wants to move real money per spin will simply move games rather than move site. The cap reshapes where the risk sits, not whether it exists.
Bonus terms are the other limit a UK licence now fixes. Since 19 January 2026, wagering requirements on bonus funds are capped at ten times, and mixed-product promotions requiring two or more types of gambling are banned. The Commission chose a cap over an outright prohibition, saying it would "take out extreme levels as some licensees currently apply up to 60 times wagering requirements". Sixty. That number is the clearest possible argument for the cap's existence, and the clearest possible warning about what sits outside it.
What the licence does not fix is time. The LCCP sets no maximum number of days within which a withdrawal must be completed. The regime relies on fair and open terms, the identity-verification condition and the prohibition on unfair terms rather than a stated deadline. That gap is where the interesting failures happen — a point I come back to below.
Top 10 Online Gambling Sites Offshore and The Same Interface
Top 10 online gambling sites assembled by affiliates will often include operators on Curaçao, Anjouan, Kahnawake or Maltese papers, or on nothing that amounts to a licence at all. None of them is licensed in Great Britain. That sentence does the real work of this section. The Gambling Commission states plainly that it is illegal to offer commercial gambling services to consumers in Great Britain without a Commission licence, including where the operator holds a licence elsewhere — and section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 makes providing facilities for gambling without an operating licence an offence carrying, on summary conviction, up to 51 weeks' imprisonment, a level 5 fine, or both.
What that means for a player is concrete. GamStop does not apply. A self-exclusion registered with GamStop Online blocks access to operators licensed in Great Britain only, and holds for its full term and then stays in place until the person contacts GamStop to remove it — the terms are explicit that registrations are not lifted early. An offshore site offers no way round that, whatever its advertising suggests. UK protections do not travel either: no financial limit prompt, no ten-times wagering cap, no Financial Ombudsman, no statutory ADR scheme, and no assurance that money held is segregated at all.
The regulators are candid about the targeting. A Gambling Commission industry warning notice of 20 January 2025 said casino games from licensed operators were appearing on unlicensed sites available to GB consumers, and noted that such sites often target customers who have self-excluded via GamStop. That is not a stray observation; it is a business model. The scale is disputed but not small — the Commission's November 2026 analysis estimates that among respondents who had gambled online in the previous four weeks, 2.5 per cent had engaged with an illegal gambling website.
Cost is not a proxy for quality either. Anjouan's published fee schedule lists EUR 17,828 for B2C licence issuance and the same for annual renewal. Curaçao charges a one-off application fee of EUR 4,592 and EUR 47,450 a year in total. Those sums buy a certificate, not an assurance about how your withdrawal will be handled. An ABC News investigation published 31 December 2025 reported that Anjouan Licensing Services claims to have issued more than 1,300 gambling licences, and that a former attorney-general of the Comoros described that licensing body as "an illegal entity" — a claim the operator disputes.
How Limits Compare by Type of Cap
The table below compares the four limit types that actually decide an outcome, by licence and by instrument. Methods and criteria, not brands — the whole point is that the rule, not the logo, sets the number.
| Limit type | UK-licensed operator | Offshore operator | Where the figure comes from |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slots stake per game cycle | £5 max, all adults; £2 max aged 18-24 | No statutory cap | Operating licence condition, from 9 Apr 2025 and 21 May 2025 |
| Bonus wagering requirement | 10× maximum | Commonly 25×-50× | LCCP SR Code 5.1.1, in force 19 Jan 2026 |
| Deposit review trigger | £150 net over 30 days (financial vulnerability check) | None required | Commission requirement effective 28 Feb 2025 |
| Withdrawal deadline | No fixed maximum; fair-terms condition applies | Usually no stated cap; maximum cashout clauses common | LCCP fair and open terms; no payout deadline set |
Two things in that table deserve a second look. The first is the middle-right cell: the arithmetic of a 35× requirement on a £100 bonus is £3,500 of play before a penny of bonus-derived winnings is withdrawable — seven hundred slots spins at £5, and on offshore terms the contribution of those spins depends on the game. Ignition's published contribution chart, as an example of the genre, counts slots at 100 per cent but roulette and baccarat at 5 per cent, so the same £3,500 of roulette play moves the requirement by £175. A player who reads "35×" and pictures slot play is reading a different offer from the one they will get.
The second is the bottom row. A completion time that is fast in the aggregate and slow for the unlucky is exactly what the Commission's own complaint data describes, onshore. Offshore, there is no fixed deadline to breach, which is worse than a deadline that is occasionally missed.
How Identity Checks Affect Withdrawal Speed
If one mechanism decides whether a withdrawal takes thirty minutes or thirty days, it is identity verification. It is also the subject of over a quarter of the complaints reaching the Commission's Contact Centre — a figure that appears in its August 2026 blog, alongside its warning that operators were onboarding customers on partial or equivocal verification through "fuzzy matching".
How it works the first time. Under licence condition 17, introduced on 7 May 2019, a licensee must obtain and verify information establishing a customer's identity before that customer is permitted to gamble, covering at least name, address and date of birth. In practice most operators run the details through electronic databases — credit reference agencies, the electoral roll — and if they match, no documents are needed at all. The Commission says it cannot give a timescale for identity checks because the process varies, though it notes electronic verification may be instant while a document request adds days.
So far so reasonable. The friction arrives later, because of the second layer: the anti-money-laundering rules in the 2017 Regulations, which for remote casinos require identification and verification when a customer deposits, withdraws or wins €2,000 or more — and the €2,000 threshold applies to linked transactions, not just a single one. A casino may verify age at registration under what the Commission calls the "hybrid approach" and defer full verification until that threshold triggers. If a customer's activity in a single logged-on period crosses it, the documents come out.
The warning signs are easy to name. A site that asks for nothing on deposit but demands a passport, a bank statement and a selfie at withdrawal is treating verification as a brake on outflows rather than a check on entry. That is precisely what licence condition 17.1.1 prohibits: a withdrawal request must not produce a requirement for information the licensee could reasonably have requested earlier. The prohibition has a carve-out — a licensee may still seek what another legal obligation, such as an AML rule, requires at that moment — and the carve-out is where the ambiguity lives.
The practical test costs nothing. A site that states, on the deposit page, which documents may be needed, in what circumstances and in what form, has told you what it will do next. A site that mentions documents only in a terms page nobody opens has told you something too — and the same failure of care shows up in the Commission's warning that a customer onboarded with a middle name instead of a forename can mismatch against GamStop records, quietly undermining an exclusion that was supposed to hold.
How to Judge a Gambling Site
Five signs separate an operator that means what it says from one that merely says it. Each takes minutes to check.
The licence is verifiable, not merely displayed
A British licence can be checked against the Commission's public register, and the register should show the domain name you are on and the activities the site actually offers. The Commission's own advice is to click through and confirm both. Offshore, verification is harder and less conclusive: check a Curaçao Certificate of Operation Seal by clicking it, which must redirect to cert.cga.cw, and read the certificate — if the domain on the certificate is not the domain you are visiting, the site is displaying another operator's paperwork. Kahnawake runs a clickable logo that generates a Certificate of Good Standing.
The limits are stated in numbers, before you deposit
Look for a stated maximum stake per game cycle, a deposit review threshold and a withdrawal ceiling, each with a figure attached. A site that describes its limits in adjectives — "generous", "flexible", "player-friendly" — has not stated any. Sites rated "not protected" for customer funds in the event of insolvency must remind customers of that every six months, with the value of funds held, so a clear insolvency rating in the terms is a good sign of a straightforward operator.
Withdrawal terms have no discretionary trapdoors
Read the clause that lets the operator void or withhold winnings. In the UK, terms granting sole discretion — "may" or "reserve the right" — are treated as unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which is why the Commission's guidance tells operators not to use them. A maximum cashout clause in the small print does something similar by arithmetic. BlueChip Casino, as one example, reserves the right to limit withdrawable winnings from bonus funds to 300 per cent of the credited bonus amount with the excess voided — a term no British licensee could carry.
Bonus conditions are one click away, in full
Significant conditions on a promotion — wagering, time limits, game contribution, maximum bet while wagering, eligibility — should be readable from the offer itself. In the UK, SR Code 5.1.9 requires them to be displayed transparently and prominently, and where shown online, in full no further than one click away. The maximum-bet clause deserves particular attention: BlueChip caps bets while wagering at €5 for regular players and €10 for VIPs and rejects anything above, while Ignition sets the casino maximum at 20 per cent of the deposited amount and warns that a breach may mean account closure and forfeiture of winnings.
A dispute can be taken somewhere that is not the operator
British licensees must let a customer refer an unresolved dispute to an approved ADR provider free of charge, once eight weeks have passed and the operator's own procedure has run its course. The list includes IBAS, eCOGRA, CEDR and others. The figures show what to expect: IBAS recorded 3,721 domestic disputes in 2024-25 with an average completion time of 20 days, while eCOGRA's report for October 2024 to September 2025 recorded 911 disputes and 31 days for the average domestic resolution, with 17.8 per cent decided in the consumer's favour. Offshore, that route often ends at a nominated ADR provider whose terms the operator chose — Anjouan names EGIS ADR, Axion ADR, iGaming ADR and a nominated provider, and expects complaints resolved within 30 days before escalation.
A Practical Way to Rank Them Yourself
Ignore the order of any list you did not build. Build your own, in this sequence.
- Confirm where the licence sits, and check it. Open the Commission's public register for a British operator and match the domain and activities; offshore, click the seal and read the certificate's domain. Reason: nothing else on the page means anything if the licence claim is decoration.
- Record the maximum stake per game cycle and the game it applies to. On a UK licence slots cap at £5, or £2 for the under-25s, while roulette and blackjack are uncapped. Reason: the cap governs slots, so the game choice governs exposure — know which you intend to play.
- Write down the withdrawal ceiling and the payment terms before depositing. Check for a maximum cashout clause, a per-withdrawal cap, and any processing fee, which must be cost-reflective and disclosed before you deposit. Reason: a limit discovered at withdrawal time is a limit that has already cost something.
- Read the bonus's significant conditions in full — wagering, contribution weight, maximum bet, time limit. Reason: game contribution converts a 35× requirement into something very different depending on what you play, and the maximum-bet rule catches people who never intended to breach anything.
- Check the customer-funds rating and the dispute route. Look for "not protected", "medium protection" or "high protection" in the terms, and confirm an approved ADR provider is named. Reason: these are the two answers you cannot obtain after something has gone wrong with an operator that has stopped answering.
- Set your own account limits at the point of first deposit and diarise the six-month review. Reason: the prompt exists because the moment before the first deposit is the only moment when the figure is chosen calmly.
How Crypto Gambling Sites Handle Limits
Top 10 crypto gambling sites are ranked, almost always, on speed and anonymity, and it is worth being precise about what both mean. The chain does not set a spending limit. A Bitcoin block is targeted at ten minutes on average, but within any ten-minute window the chance of a block arriving is about 63 per cent; most exchanges wait for six confirmations. An ERC-20 transfer on Ethereum costs gas whether it succeeds or fails, and a USDT transfer on TRON consumes roughly 65,000 Energy to an existing wallet and about 130,000 to a new one — which is why a payment that looked free in the marketing material can arrive short of the figure quoted.
Deposits and withdrawals in crypto do not evade the underlying question. Bitcoin accepts a payment as seen without any confirmation where the double-spend risk is negligible, which is a rational fraud decision for a merchant and not a consumer protection. If a site's own limits are silent, your limits are the only ones in the transaction. And no blockchain removes the need for identity verification on the operator's side, whatever the site implies — the 2017 Regulations' €2,000 threshold and the Commission's high-risk rating for remote casino both turn on the operator's obligations, not the payment rail.
Fees compound the picture. Skrill charges 2.80 per cent on a bank withdrawal with a EUR 3.50 minimum; Neteller charges the same rate with a USD 3.50 minimum, plus 4.49 per cent for foreign exchange; MiFinity charges 1.8 per cent for crypto withdrawals and marks up FX by up to 2.99 per cent. PayPal charges nothing to withdraw to a UK bank account where no currency conversion is involved. A "fast" withdrawal that has been converted twice and taxed twice has not saved anything.
What Gambling Rules Travel and What Does Not
Top 10 gambling sites in the world is a phrase that flatters a licence-free market. A British licence, a Curaçao licence and a Maltese licence are three different contracts with three different regulators, and only one of them answers to a British consumer. Curaçao has been restructuring under the National Ordinance on Games of Chance since 24 December 2024: direct licensing by the Curaçao Gaming Authority replaced the master-licence model, the legacy "orange" sub-licence certificates ended on 15 October 2025, and a historic /JAZ number is no longer proof of a current licence. The Authority said on 7 October 2026 that its previous portal would not return to service and that it is working on an alternative way to verify licensed domains — so verification that worked last year may not work this year.
Anjouan states that its Internet Gaming Licences contain no territorial restrictions under Anjouan law, and adds that licence holders must comply with the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. Its own statement of 10 June 2026 is blunter: an Anjouan licence "is not, and has never been presented as, a universal authorisation to operate in every country in the world". Kahnawake has regulated interactive gaming since 1999 and asks operators to let players set limits including zero; it also states that its own voluntary self-exclusion is permanent and irrevocable, and that a player who breaches a self-exclusion forfeits funds deposited or won to a charity chosen by the Commission. Those are real terms. They are also not British terms, and they bind the operator, not the regulator you can ring.
Meanwhile the British regulator is spending real money on the perimeter. Its Illegal Markets team issued 3,140 cease and desist and disruption notices between April 2024 and October 2025, referred 447,778 Bing and Google URLs and secured 287,961 removals. In July to September 2026 alone it referred 1,835 websites. Measured across 160 illegal sites, engagement fell 32 per cent on average after disruption — with registrar blocks achieving 91 per cent and search-engine removals 30 per cent. It is worth noticing that across April 2025 to March 2026 the Commission commenced one prosecution in total. Disruption is cheap; conviction is slow.
How Delays Are Built Into Terms
Some limits are not written as numbers. They are written as process, and they appear in clauses that read like diligence. A term letting an operator review every fifth or tenth withdrawal manually, requiring fresh information each time, is a delay built into the product. The Commission's October 2026 settlement with one licensee — £900,000, covering failures that included unnecessarily delaying consumer withdrawals — turned on exactly that shape of term, including a restriction prohibiting a second withdrawal request until the first had been authorised. The Commission considered the term unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Reverse withdrawals are the cruder version, and they are gone in Britain: RTS 14B, in force since 31 October 2021, states that consumers must not be given the option to cancel a withdrawal request. The reasoning was that reversing a withdrawal is a temptation machine, and the Commission's guidance is that the withdrawal process should be as frictionless as possible. Offshore, an identical-looking cashier may still offer the reverse button, and that button is the difference between a withdrawal and a very long session.
Beware too the withdrawal option that looks like generosity. Some sites offer to hold funds in an e-wallet balance, withdrawable other than by cash-out — which converts a payout into another wager. The Commission's guidance is specific that players must be allowed to withdraw their deposit balance at any time, including while a bonus is pending or active. On a British licence the choice is yours by right; offshore it is a term you agreed to.
The complaint tail is where this all lands. Complaints to the Commission's Contact Centre coded "Withdrawals and/or financial transactions" fell from 2,416 in the year to December 2022 to 1,791 in the year to December 2025 — real improvement, from a high base, on a market that has grown substantially. And the Commission's Annual Report for 2024-25 still records withdrawal issues as the cause of most complaints received. Improvement is not the same as resolution.
Skin Betting and Anecdotes
Top 10 csgo gambling sites belongs to a different corner of the market — skin betting, usually, where the wager is an item rather than a currency, and where the operator's licence is often the thinnest part of the proposition. Top 10 best gambling sites, as a query, tends to mean the same thing as every other version of the phrase: someone else's ranking, assembled with an affiliate link attached.
The Commission's perimeter work touches this territory. It reports referring illegal gambling content to Meta, TikTok, X and YouTube, and it recorded 84 illegal lottery URLs removed from social platforms and 108 illegal lotteries referred in April to June 2025. Skin sites and social lotteries are not the same product, but they share the that matters here: no British licence, no GamStop match, no limit imposed from outside.
If a UK-facing site uses games supplied by a licensed operator, that is not a guarantee either. The Commission's warning notice of 20 January 2025 specifically flagged licensed operators' casino games appearing on unlicensed sites, and in May 2025 it reported that TGP Europe was leaving the GB market, that sites it had operated were now unlicensed, and that it had contacted five football clubs about sponsorship arrangements with unlicensed gambling businesses. A familiar slot and a familiar logo on an unfamiliar domain name prove nothing at all.
The Limits at the Two Ends of the Market
Two numbers describe the whole market better than any top ten. The first is the £2 maximum stake per game cycle for players aged 18 to 24 on slots, imposed from 21 May 2025 — a figure that exists because the evidence on harm among younger players justified it. The second is 25.1 billion slots spins recorded in a single quarter, January to March 2026, across 4.8 million average monthly active accounts, generating £773 million in gross gambling yield from slots alone. A £2 cap and 25 billion spins are the same story told from two ends: the limit per spin is small, and the aggregate is enormous.
That is the argument for paying attention to limits rather than lists. A cap on a single game cycle, a prompt before a first deposit, a ten-times ceiling on wagering, a withdrawal that does not wait on a discretionary review — these are the mechanisms that decide what a session costs. Rank sites on them and the order will look unlike the one an affiliate wrote. That is a feature, not a flaw.
If any of this describes a situation rather than an abstraction, the help is free and immediate. The National Gambling Helpline, run by GamCare, is on 0808 8020 133, 24 hours a day, every day of the year — callers in Wales can use 0808 2819 265. Live chat and WhatsApp reach the same service. GamFam supports families and friends; the NHS National Gambling Clinic takes self-referrals; Citizens Advice helps with debt. Treatment in England is now commissioned by NHS England and funded by a statutory levy on operators that raised just under £120 million in its first year, ringfenced for research, prevention and treatment. Notably, none of that reaches an offshore operator. That is the whole point of the licence.
Questions I Get Asked About These Lists
What counts as a top 10 gambling sites UK list worth trusting?
A list worth reading states the criterion it ranks on — stake limits, withdrawal speed, licences held — and names its source for each. Any list ordered by welcome bonus alone is an advertising document. The test is simple: if you cannot tell why site four beats site five, the ranking has no method, and a ranking without a method cannot be checked or argued with.
Are offshore gambling sites legal for UK players?
The offence under section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 attaches to the operator, not the player: it is illegal to provide facilities for gambling in Great Britain without a licence, and the Commission states this includes an operator licensed only abroad. Players are not prosecuted under that section. What they lose is different — every British protection, including GamStop coverage and access to an approved ADR scheme.
Why is my withdrawal held for identity documents at withdrawal?
Usually because the account was onboarded on incomplete or partial verification, and the operator is only now satisfying its obligations under the 2017 Regulations, where remote casinos must identify and verify at €2,000 of deposits, withdrawals or winnings — a threshold that also catches linked transactions in one logged-on period. Licence condition 17.1.1 says a withdrawal must not create a document demand the operator could reasonably have made earlier.
Does GamStop cover offshore casinos?
No. GamStop Online blocks access to operators licensed in Great Britain only, and the licence condition requiring participation applies to those licensees. A registered exclusion holds for its full term and remains in place afterwards until the person contacts GamStop to remove it — registrations are not lifted early. No offshore site provides a route around that, and a Commission warning notice has noted that unlicensed sites often target people who have self-excluded.
Do crypto casinos have any deposit or withdrawal limits?
Yes, but not from a regulator. Blockchain fees and confirmation rules shape what arrives: a TRON USDT transfer consumes roughly 65,000 Energy to an existing wallet and about 130,000 to a new one, and Ethereum gas is charged whether a transaction succeeds or fails. Beyond that, any limit is the operator's own term. Unlike a British licence, nothing requires a crypto casino to prompt a financial limit before a first deposit.
How quickly should a licensed site pay out?
The aggregate is quick and the tail is not. Commission data for June to September 2024 records 44.2 million withdrawals from large online operators, with 96.3 per cent cleared automatically and 0.1 per cent taking up to 48 hours. Yet withdrawal problems remain the top subject of consumer complaints to the Commission, which also states that where an operator has no regulatory concern about a customer there is no valid reason to delay a payout.
Limits, Not Lists, Are the Ranking
A top ten is only as good as the criterion behind it, and the only criterion that survives contact with a real session is the limit — on the stake, on the deposit, on the withdrawal, and on the time the operator is permitted to take over it.
The last figure is my favourite, because it is the least dramatic and the most useful: 0.1 per cent of 44.2 million withdrawals took up to 48 hours. That is roughly 44,000 requests in one nine-month window that a British-licensed market was permitted to sit on — and offshore, where no deadline exists, nobody is counting at all.