More than £13bn was gambled on high-speed, high-stakes gambling machines by the poorest quarter of England's population – double the amount staked in the richest areas, according to a study obtained by the Guardian.

The report, to be released next week in parliament, reveals that in the 55 most deprived boroughs of the country – overwhelmingly concentrated in northern cities and urban London – high streets were lined with 2,691 betting shops in which £13bn was gambled or staked on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) by punters, and £470m of that lost, last year.

By comparison, there were 1,258 bookmakers in shopping centres in the 115 richest districts, containing the same population – mainly in rural areas and urban commuter belts – where players staked £6.5bn, losing £231m, in the same 12 months.

The figures, produced by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, appear to show that bookmakers have targeted the poorest areas with the highest unemployment, lowest income levels and higher crime rates. It is a charge the industry vigorously rejects, claiming that shops have clustered only where people are densely concentrated.

There also appears to have been a surge in the number of betting shops in high streets, as profitability from FOBTs offering casino games such as roulette has increased. In December 2013, data culled from local authority records shows 9,343 active betting shop premise licences – an increase of more than 280 licences over the official count by the gambling regulator nine months earlier.

The industry does acknowledge that the distribution of shops mapped by the campaigners is correct, and has hired the same company that did the work for the campaign to produce a similiar chart of Britain for ministers. However, the Association of British Bookmakers says the campaigners can only estimate from averages what the earnings are.

Neil Goulden, who chairs the ABB, said the industry found betting shops in richer areas were eight times more profitable than those in poorer areas. "So you cannot just use average figures to work on profits. Also in richer areas we see higher player participation. We do not target the poor. It is a question of where populations are."

Critics say the machines are highly addictive and lead to crime and poverty but the gambling industry argues there is no hard evidence to back this claim. This week betting shops launched a new code of conduct to allow players to limit their betting.

About £2.5bn was dropped into the machines in the poorest boroughs, the campaign group's report suggests, compared with £1.2bn in the richest. The staked or gambling figures are higher because of the way multiple bets are made drawing on winnings.

In the most deprived council – Liverpool – the study suggests £118m was inserted into 570 machines, leading to £636m in bets and the bookmakers taking £23m off punters. However, in the least deprived borough in England – Hampshire's Hart district, voted consistently the UK's most desirable place to live for quality of life – there are just seven betting shops, with an estimated two dozen machines.

Such is the concern in Liverpool that the council voted unaminously to be given powers to rein in the spread of bookmakers with the city calling for the ability for councillors to reduce the speed of play and bring down the maximum stake. Nick Small, who represents Liverpool city centre, said millions of pounds that should be used to pay rent or for food was being "sucked into the machines".

He added: "Bookies are arriving all the time into prime retail locations. This is all driven for FOBTs. I have no doubt of it.We are seeing horrific reports of family breakdown caused by gambling debts, problems with loan sharks. We are pretty sure organised crime is using the machines to launder money. It's out of control in a city like ours, where there are a lot of poorer people."

The campaign says bookmakers, essentially five big firms which account for 92% of all high street betting shops, are addicted to the machines' earning power. According to the analysis the 33,000 FOBTs across the UK produced gross profits of £1.6bn last year.

Such has been the focus on the machines that the industry regulator thinks that FOBTs current claim that there is a mathematical Return To Player (RTP) of 97.3% on roulette – suggesting that the player has a near 100% chance of winning – can be misunderstood.

As David Cameron acknowledged concerns about the machines last month, ministers said they would wait for the conclusion of research – funded by the gambling industry– before considering a reduction in the maximum stake on the machines. But a source who has discussed the matter with Conservative Central Office said the prime minister had put off any major decision until later this year.

What is clear is that bookmakers are more thinly spread in Tory constituencies. When the Guardian analysed the data, the constituencies of the coalition cabinet contained on average just 11 bookmakers, whereas Labour seats had 20. Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne's constituences together have fewer than half the number of bookies found in the Leeds Central constituency of Hilary Benn – which alone has 39 shops.

Benn said: "These figures show clearly that there is a problem of clustering in poorer areas which government ministers simply don't get. Indeed, they have made matters worse by making it much easier for new betting shops to open up without having to apply for planning permission."

"That's why Labour will give communities the power in future to decide on each individual application so they can determine whether there are too many betting shops in a particular area. We will also give councils the ability to decide how many fixed odds betting terminals there can be in individual shops."

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: "Problem gambling is a serious issue and we are determined to help tackle it. The new player protection code is a positive step in the right direction, but we think more could be done. We want there to be a competitive gambling sector but not at the expense of public protection.

"We are currently reviewing what measures, if any, are needed concerning planning and further protection for those most vulnerable and will report back in the spring."

• The headline on this article was amended on 4 March 2014. An earlier version referred to the amount spent, rather than the amount wagered.