Operators should use layered authentication that binds a user to a trusted identity and verifies it at key points in the journey, not only at login. MFA helps, but it works best when paired with digital identity checks that can detect proxy betting attempts and geolocation circumvention. The goal is to block abuse while preserving a smooth experience for legitimate bettors.
How to verify a bettor is legitimate without over-checking every session
The practical answer is to treat authentication as one control in a longer trust chain. Sports betting operators usually need to verify the player at onboarding, at login, and again when signals change, such as unusual device behavior, location mismatch, or account recovery events. That lets you stop proxy betting while reserving heavier checks for cases where the risk is actually elevated.
A useful pattern is risk-based step-up authentication: keep the normal journey fast for low-risk play, then challenge only when the session looks inconsistent with the claimed identity. This is where strong digital identity matters, because MFA alone cannot tell you whether the person behind the device is the intended account holder, or someone relaying access from elsewhere.
Operators that want a smooth user experience should separate the identity decision from the betting action. The player should not have to repeat full verification every time, but the system should be able to re-evaluate trust before withdrawals, market changes, geolocation-sensitive wagers, account changes, or other high-impact actions that proxy bettors tend to target.
Why MFA blocks some proxy betting, but not all of it
MFA reduces the chance that a stolen password alone is enough to place bets, but it is not a complete answer to proxy betting. The common failure mode is that the attacker or proxy can still satisfy the second factor, reuse an approved session, or exploit a weak recovery path. In other words, the system may still trust the session even when the original login was legitimate.
That is why the operator should treat MFA as a gate, not as proof of ongoing legitimate presence. Stronger outcomes come from combining MFA with device binding, session risk checks, and identity verification that can detect remote assistance, shared access, or location circumvention. The point is not to add friction everywhere; it is to make the added friction happen only when it has a clear security purpose.
For this reason, operators should avoid using SMS-only or one-time-code-only design as the highest-risk control for high-value betting journeys. Where the use case allows, phishing-resistant methods and stronger account recovery controls give better protection and fewer false positives than repeated code entry or help-desk resets.
Where friction should be applied in the betting journey
The best place for friction is usually not the first login. It is the point where the operator can see that something does not fit the established identity profile. That may include a new device, a new browser profile, an impossible travel pattern, a mismatch between claimed and observed location, or a session that suddenly changes behavior after a period of normal use.
Operators should therefore reserve the strictest controls for moments that materially change risk: onboarding, password reset, payout, account recovery, unusual deposit behavior, or a betting pattern that suggests an account is being used as a proxy. This keeps legitimate players moving while still giving the operator a chance to stop abuse before it creates exposure.
It also helps to make the controls progressive. A low-risk customer might see only a silent identity check in the background, while a higher-risk session might receive an MFA prompt, a document or biometric re-check, or a temporary hold pending review. That tiered model is usually better than a blanket challenge on every visit.
Risk and Threat Considerations
Proxy betting creates both fraud risk and integrity risk. If operators only check MFA at login, a proxy can exploit shared devices, relayed credentials, account recovery weaknesses, or session reuse to place wagers from the wrong location or on behalf of the wrong person.
Failure mechanism: The control fails when authentication is treated as a one-time event rather than a continuous trust decision, allowing a legitimate session to be reused, delegated, or externally operated after the initial check.
Impact: That can lead to account abuse, regulatory exposure, bonus abuse, payout disputes, and a poor experience for genuine players when operators compensate by making all checks more aggressive.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
NIST SP 800-63, NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and NIST CSF 2.0 set the technical controls, while ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST SP 800-63 | Digital Identity Guidelines | Digital identity assurance and step-up auth directly fit bettor verification and MFA choices. |
| Recommendation — Apply assurance-based verification and step-up authentication at high-risk betting actions. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | IA-5 — Authenticator Management | MFA and recovery depend on secure authenticator lifecycle and misuse-resistant handling. |
| IA-2 — Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) | The core issue is verifying a user before allowing access to sensitive betting functions. | |
| Recommendation — Manage authenticators securely and rotate or revoke them when account risk changes. Require strong identification and authentication before granting access to sensitive functions. | ||
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.5.16 — Identity management | Identity checks, account trust, and recovery controls are central to stopping proxy betting. |
| Recommendation — Define identity ownership and verification rules for high-risk customer journeys. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AA-05 — Identity Management, Authentication, and Access Control | The subject is about authenticating players and limiting access to betting actions by risk. |
| Recommendation — Use risk-based authentication and access control to gate higher-risk betting actions. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Focus on step-up decisions that are tied to risk signals, not on maximizing the number of MFA prompts. The best design is the one that catches proxy behavior early while preserving low-friction play for normal sessions.
What to verify: Confirm that your identity checks can distinguish a valid login from a valid ongoing session. If the control only authenticates at the front door, it is not enough for proxy betting.
Decision rule: If the activity affects payout, location-sensitive wagering, or account recovery, treat the session as high risk and require stronger proof of presence or ownership before continuing.
Practitioner takeaway: The winning pattern is layered trust, not repeated annoyance, use MFA to reduce easy account abuse, then let digital identity and risk signals decide when extra friction is actually justified.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- How should organisations use proof of address in identity verification without creating unnecessary friction for legitimate users?
- How should government agencies implement identity verification at high-risk service moments without creating unnecessary friction for legitimate users?
- How should organisations use eKYC to improve onboarding without creating unnecessary friction for legitimate users?
- How should organisations implement digital age checks without creating unnecessary friction for legitimate users?
