The Government has clamped down on high street betting but opened the door to the Wild West

Today marks the reduction of stakes on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in high street betting shops from £100 to £2.

Many punters developed serious addictions and crippling debts due to the high stakes and high speed at which their money could be taken.

After mounting pressure from campaigners and an in-depth investigation by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the law was changed to greatly reduce the amount gamblers could wager.

Undoubtedly, reducing the exposure to risk for problem gamblers is an important step in the right direction, but the policy is short-sighted. The lack of any other robust measures to tackle problem gambling around this have left gaping holes where addicts can still fall foul.

It is quite simply naive to think that capping the maximum stake on one product is an effective measure to bring about sustainable responsible gambling. It is not effective.

My father David, 62, racked up debts of more than £500,000, remortgaging the family home and even stealing money from his employers in secret to fund his out of control gambling addiction. He gambled for over thirty years, in the latter years spending up to £30,000 online on slots and casino games, where there is little to no regulation to protect those who are vulnerable.

Behavioural studies have shown that gamblers who are addicted usually bet using multiple products and I have long warned the government and policymakers that a narrow focus on one aspect of gambling will simply lead to punters transferring the addiction to another product.

Gambling Commission research shows that over 50 per cent of those who do gamble use a mobile phone or the internet. A similar study by GambleAware found that over 50,000 young people aged under 16 bet regularly and are most probably addicted. The pervasiveness and over-advertising of gambling in recent years has led to a normalisation of this leisure activity to an unprecedented degree, particularly considering it has the potential to be addictive.

Gambling industry shareholders were rightly annoyed at the heavy crackdown on this one element of the industry. Although the machines do cause problems for a large number of addicts and a high number of those with a betting addiction used these machines, we did not have sufficient evidence around the psychological effects of the addiction or the behavioural patterns of addicts to be able to come up with health-based policy which puts the well-being and mental health of those whose minds are altered by gambling first.

Now the industry has been left in a situation where it needs to cut jobs and protect its other revenue streams, with uncertainty about the direction of future regulation. There is evidence of malpractice and bad behaviour in the industry which should rightly be tackled but for some reason evidence of wrongdoing is not translating into proactive policy with support of the Gambling Commission.

We now need to properly address the online gambling market. The UK is home to dozens of UK-based websites and operators and is a hub for hundreds more which are legally based abroad. They provide a vast array of opportunities to gamble which may be appealing to investors but is concerning for those interested in the safety and security of addicts.

We need to act now to push for greater regulation. Mandatory behaviour-tracking software and sensible betting limits by default, perhaps linked to a credit profile or affordability profile, should be rolled out across the industry.

We need to also look carefully at the use of social media and advertising. Two possibilities are hiding in-site adverts or gameplay behind login screens and implementing effective ID checking mechanisms. This would mean that those who are underage or have excluded themselves from gambling have no opportunities to get around the system or get hooked again.

An investigation conducted by Safer Online Gambling Group in January showed that Gamstop, the most widely used online self exclusion scheme is failing.

By changing a couple of user details in a betting account our colleagues were able to bypass the system and continue gambling - Gamstop blamed these issues on a lack of proper identify verification for gamblers online. What confidence does this give you that those who are underage or who have desperately tried to ban themselves from betting will actually be properly protected?

We also need greater investment in research and treatment. If two million people are at risk of becoming problem gamblers and only 20,000 at any one time are able to access treatment in this country, we have a gap to fill.

The public purse is stretched but the £14bn gambling industry could stump up more funds through a mandatory levy. This would enable more investment in robust research to understand players and the addiction better and to fuel evidence-based intervention and treatment. Ultimately, it would not only satisfy the concerns of campaigners and those working with the addiction but it would lead to a more sustainable business model for the gambling industry.

Adam Bradford is the co-founder of the Safer Online Gambling Group.