Online Sports Betting Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 New York Sports Betting Statistics for 2026

Do not confuse a sportsbook account with a bettor, or money wagered with revenue received by the state. New York's administrative reports, resident survey and cash accounts measure different parts of the market. Read them together while preserving their denominators and reporting periods.

This page covers licensed mobile activity, sport categories, residents' reported betting methods and attitudes, and monthly government cash receipts. The selected administrative evidence concerns calendar 2025, the resident poll was conducted in July 2026, and the fiscal series reaches September 2026. These sources do not establish the size of an offshore market or the prevalence of gambling disorder.

Headline figures

  • Mobile stakes totalled $25,375,820,000. (NY Gaming Commission/OASAS, Sep 2026)
  • Licensee gross gaming revenue totalled $2,220,621,000. (NY Gaming Commission/OASAS, Sep 2026)
  • Average amount per wager was $42. (NY Gaming Commission/OASAS, Sep 2026)
  • Accounts reporting age: 40% were in the source's 25–34 age band. (NY Gaming Commission/OASAS, Sep 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among all residents: 25%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among men: 37%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among women: 14%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Online-sportsbook use among all bettors: 84%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Agreement that sportsbooks should not advertise during televised sports among all residents: 43%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Residents rating live-game betting commentary bad for sports, all residents: 52%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • December 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $154.4 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • June 2026 mobile-sports cash receipts: $39.0 million. (NYS Comptroller, Sep 2026)

What do New York's account and activity figures measure?

Turnover, account counts and interaction logs answer different questions. Treating them as interchangeable produces misleading estimates of participation and spending.

How much platform activity was recorded?

The administrative report measures activity on licensed mobile platforms, not the number of distinct residents gambling. Transactions include balance checks and browsing as well as bets. Accounts can also differ from people when someone uses several providers. The reported average therefore describes the account base under the report's definition; it is not a household budget or the typical bettor's loss. New-account openings measure additions during the year, instead of net growth after closures. The source warns that operators can extract data differently, so apparent precision should not erase those methodological limits.

How does the voluntarily reported age profile vary?

Age figures describe accounts whose holders supplied demographic information, not all New Yorkers. The original chart's age bands are retained, including its overlapping boundary labels. Do not silently recode those categories or treat their shares as a census of unique people. A person with multiple accounts can influence the account distribution differently from a resident survey. These observations are useful for understanding the reported account base, but missing ages and operator reporting differences limit wider generalisation.

What does the underage incident count establish?

  • Operators reported 1,972 underage-gambling incidents, primarily involving access to adults' accounts. (NY Gaming Commission/OASAS, Sep 2026)

The reported incident count documents a control problem; it is not a prevalence estimate for all young people. The narrative says most incidents involved access to accounts legitimately established by adults. An incident is therefore not necessarily a newly opened underage account, and it cannot be divided by the account total to calculate a reliable underage participation rate. The source separately discusses attempted account openings and weaknesses in consistent reporting. Those categories should remain separate from actual access. Better detection can change an incident count even when the underlying behaviour does not move in the same direction. This measure is best used to describe the specific reporting year and the enforcement problem identified by the regulator, without inferring causation from legalisation.

Which sports accounted for reported mobile stakes?

Basketball leads the source table, but sport categories are accounting buckets instead of standalone markets. Parlay components are allocated to the underlying sports, so the amounts should not be relabelled as single-bet turnover.

What did the larger sport categories record?

These amounts describe licensed mobile stakes during the reporting year. Stakes are repeated turnover through accounts, not operator profit or the number of fans following each sport.

How much was recorded for the middle of the table?

The category labels follow the regulator's table. In particular, fighting and boxing are separate reported categories; the broader fighting bucket should not be renamed mixed martial arts without further evidence.

What do the smallest reported categories show?

Small totals do not prove low national interest. The report identifies restricted wagering menus and limits for several of these categories, which constrain what licensed operators can accept.

Who reported betting, and which methods did they use?

Resident surveys supply the person-level perspective missing from operator account totals. Siena's participation question covers bets of any size with anyone, while its method questions are asked only of respondents who already reported betting.

How does participation vary by age, location and income?

  • Past-year sports betting among ages 18–34: 40%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among ages 35–49: 29%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among ages 50–64: 16%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among ages 65+: 7%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among New York City residents: 29%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among suburban residents: 20%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among upstate residents: 23%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among income below $50,000: 17%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among income $50,000–$100,000: 32%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports betting among income above $100,000: 29%. (Siena, Jul 2026)

The percentages below concern past-year sports betting, not daily use or exclusively online betting. Each subgroup has its own denominator. Differences are descriptive, and the overall poll's sampling error should not be applied unchanged to smaller subgroups. Income bands refer to the source's categories.

How common were online sportsbooks among different bettors?

  • Online-sportsbook use among male bettors: 90%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Online-sportsbook use among female bettors: 70%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Online-sportsbook use among bettors aged 18–34: 88%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Online-sportsbook use among bettors aged 35–49: 85%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Online-sportsbook use among bettors aged 50–64: 70%. (Siena, Jul 2026)

Online-sportsbook use is conditional on being a past-year sports bettor. These percentages cannot be read as shares of all residents in each demographic group. Respondents could use several methods, so online participation does not imply exclusive loyalty to licensed apps or eliminate informal betting. The question records whether a method was used during the reference period, without establishing frequency, expenditure, the number of apps used or the legal status of every reported transaction.

How did regional online use compare with other betting methods?

  • Online-sportsbook use among bettors aged 65+: 76%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Online-sportsbook use among New York City bettors: 85%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Online-sportsbook use among suburban bettors: 97%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Online-sportsbook use among upstate bettors: 76%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports bettors placing bets with bookies: 24%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports bettors placing bets with casinos: 41%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Past-year sports bettors placing bets with friends or family: 54%. (Siena, Jul 2026)

Regional online-use figures describe bettors in each area; the other method figures describe bettors statewide. They measure different groups and should not be summed. A respondent can appear in more than one method category, including informal bets alongside sportsbook use.

What do residents think about advertising and betting commentary?

Acceptance of wagering does not automatically mean approval of every promotion around it. These survey questions distinguish advertising restrictions from opinions about commentators discussing bets during games.

How did support for advertising restrictions differ by age?

  • Agreement that sportsbooks should not advertise during televised sports among ages 18–34: 39%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Agreement that sportsbooks should not advertise during televised sports among ages 35–49: 33%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Agreement that sportsbooks should not advertise during televised sports among ages 50–64: 42%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Agreement that sportsbooks should not advertise during televised sports among ages 65+: 63%. (Siena, Jul 2026)

These are responses to an opinion question, not a summary of New York advertising law. Siena asked whether online sportsbooks should not be allowed to advertise during televised sporting events. The reported agreement measure combines the strongly and somewhat agree responses. It does not establish that a particular advertisement changed anyone's betting behaviour. Comparing age groups can help explain why a uniform advertising policy may attract different reactions, but it cannot isolate the effect of age from income, sports interest or previous betting experience. Keep the question's negative wording intact when quoting these findings.

How did the advertising question vary across regions?

  • Agreement that sportsbooks should not advertise during televised sports among New York City residents: 42%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Agreement that sportsbooks should not advertise during televised sports among suburban residents: 44%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Agreement that sportsbooks should not advertise during televised sports among upstate residents: 40%. (Siena, Jul 2026)

These regional shares concern agreement with restricting sportsbook advertisements during televised sports. They should not be described as opposition to all gambling, or support for banning every type of gambling advertisement. New York City, suburban and upstate respondents represent different survey groups, not separate regulatory jurisdictions in this poll. The differences are descriptive instead of a test of local policy effects. Smaller subgroup samples carry more uncertainty than the full state sample, and the poll does not establish that advertising exposure itself explains the pattern. For a local story, preserve both the regional label and the exact policy question.

How did age groups view commentary about bets during games?

  • Residents rating live-game betting commentary bad for sports, ages 18–34: 42%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Residents rating live-game betting commentary bad for sports, ages 35–49: 47%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Residents rating live-game betting commentary bad for sports, ages 50–64: 56%. (Siena, Jul 2026)
  • Residents rating live-game betting commentary bad for sports, ages 65+: 69%. (Siena, Jul 2026)

The commentary question asks whether remarks about gambling and potential bets during live games are good or bad for sports. It is distinct from the advertising question and from whether sports betting benefits the state. These results measure judgments about the viewing experience, not verified harm or the frequency with which a respondent watches broadcasts. Comparisons across age groups are useful descriptive evidence, but they do not show that commentary causes people to gamble. The question also allowed uncertainty, so the percentages below should not be treated as a forced choice between complete approval and complete opposition.

How did cash receipts move through the earlier reporting months?

State cash receipts are the fiscal counterpart to wagering activity, with their own timing and accounting rules. The Comptroller's original government accounts provide an independent record of money booked by the state.

What was booked from December through early spring?

  • December 2024 mobile-sports cash receipts: $95.0 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2025)
  • January 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $140.9 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2025)
  • February 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $101.6 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2025)
  • March 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $85.4 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2025)
  • April 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $87.2 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)

These amounts come from the governmental-funds cash-flow statement's Mobile Sports row. They are receipts booked in the named month, not stakes accepted by sportsbooks or a claim that all funds were spent immediately on education. The source reports values in millions with decimal rounding. Using the cash statements preserves the state's accounting basis and avoids substituting an operator revenue series for actual receipt timing. The sequence crosses a fiscal-year boundary, so compare the named calendar months instead of assuming they all belong to one annual budget.

What did the subsequent summer and autumn months record?

  • May 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $107.7 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • June 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $114.9 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • July 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $88.4 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • August 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $70.8 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • September 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $113.2 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • October 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $112.2 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)

The same governmental-funds receipt line is used throughout this sequence. That consistency counts because the report also includes general-fund and special-revenue views that can show different allocations. Switching between those tables would create a false trend. Monthly movements can reflect payment timing and accounting treatment alongside the sports calendar. The values here therefore support a cash-receipt timeline, not a direct estimate of how much each month's bettors lost. For comparisons with gaming reports, reconcile both the reporting period and the financial measure before calculating a growth rate.

What do the latest cash statements add?

Recent receipts expose variation that an annual total can hide. Read the monthly sequence as a state accounting series instead of extrapolating a single high or low month into a permanent run rate.

What was booked around the calendar-year transition?

  • November 2025 mobile-sports cash receipts: $135.2 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • January 2026 mobile-sports cash receipts: $119.0 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • February 2026 mobile-sports cash receipts: $91.7 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • March 2026 mobile-sports cash receipts: $103.3 million. (NYS Comptroller, Mar 2026)
  • April 2026 mobile-sports cash receipts: $122.4 million. (NYS Comptroller, Sep 2026)

The observations continue the same cash series into the following calendar year. A fiscal statement can contain several earlier months, so the citation date identifies the report's stated accounting period while each bullet names the month being measured. No amount has been moved to a different month to match a sporting event. This distinction also prevents confusion between the date a report was released and the period of its underlying receipts. Treat the sequence as a documented cash ledger; attributing a particular movement to a championship would require additional evidence about settlement and payment timing.

What did the most recent available months show?

  • May 2026 mobile-sports cash receipts: $109.8 million. (NYS Comptroller, Sep 2026)
  • July 2026 mobile-sports cash receipts: $123.8 million. (NYS Comptroller, Sep 2026)
  • August 2026 mobile-sports cash receipts: $80.7 million. (NYS Comptroller, Sep 2026)
  • September 2026 mobile-sports cash receipts: $96.0 million. (NYS Comptroller, Sep 2026)

These are the remaining receipt months in the latest statement used here. The especially low receipt observation already appears in the takeaways and is not repeated in this list. A short series cannot establish a lasting change in demand or a forecast for future tax receipts. It can, however, identify months that deserve reconciliation against payment records and operator reports. The figures preserve the source's rounding, and later revisions should be checked against the next cash statement. Missing future months are not zeros: they are outside the available reporting period for this update.

Glossary

Methodology and sources

Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.