Bitcoin Forum

Do you believe that the Deposit threshold can minimize gambling addiction in the poor sector?!
That’s what our lawmakers believe. Right now, you can deposit as low as 1 dollar in our local casino through our local e-wallet, and because of this, many poor people become addicted to games like Bingo, scatter, and other luck-based games.

So, they are enacting a law that increases the deposit threshold from $1 to $175, making it harder for these individuals to fund their accounts and play.

This law is also the reason why stocks from gambling platforms are taking a big hit and suffering from a plunge, because a big number of their players come from poor and middle-income earners.


Regulatory Concerns Shake Philippine Online Gambling Sector; Stocks Take Hit (https://news.worldcasinodirectory.com/regulatory-concerns-shake-philippine-online-gambling-sector-stocks-take-hit-118906)

Good but it won't be enough. It tries to block people from playing but it does not investigate or handle reasons for why they are playing. Some people say it is cultural at times when there is a lot of people in some societies playing, but that is wrong. Something being common does not mean that it is permanent. With the right strategies of discouraging this kind of behavior and encouraging other alternatives, change can happen real fast. The deposit threshold could create more illegal gambling places, where underground you can play with $1.

So instead of addressing the causes of the problem, they are just shifting where people will play. It may have a slight impact on reducing gambling, but it won't help too much.

In as much as gambling is for everyone including the rich and the poor, we know that not everyone should be gambling. Gambling can easily ruin people that are not financially stable this the reason why measures are being taken for them to be restricted. If the minimum amount is above a hundred dollars to gamble a lot of poor gamblers wouldn't even attempt it because they know why would happen if they lose such an amount consistently

So how old is a person right now that allowed to play in your local casino?

Venmo Teen account I think can already play in a casino. That's got to be 13 and above which if they can send to a casino, they could already enjoy gambling. And if all ewallet users who are just as curious in trying their luck with their $1, the are going to play. It only need one friend who brags about his winning and everybody will also try playing.

It could only work for a while, but then we would have those gamblers who are really addicted, the chronic addicts looking for any means to try and fund their accounts. This may just increase the desire and action for more money from these addicted gamblers, who may even decide to get themselves involved in terrible acts just to raise money for gambling.

You are right about this but do you think the casinos will implement this? I'm yet to see a casino that will add limit to deposit because that is bad for the business. Instead of doing that, they will rather put limit on withdrawal to control outflow and never inflow, a practice that is not bad because they want to earn more profits which can only come through more deposits.

This law is unfair because many people who are responsible gamblers will be deprived of the privilege of enjoying games. Does it mean that gambling is only for the rich?
It could also give rise to illegal or unregistered gambling platforms. People might prefer to use privacy tools to gamble in unregistered casinos which might be counterproductive.

This law could also force gamblers to borrow money for an initial deposit because they want to gamble.

The law also seeks to increase the age of gamblers to 21, which might be okay since gambling is for mature minds.

There is a public clamor to do that, and it’s on local news almost daily because of some criminal cases attributed to gambling. I have a neighbor whose daily allocation is the equivalent of $2 now; it used to be $1, His reason is that he only has a few bets to get his wins, so he needs to add more to his bankroll, and his daily take is $15 so its a matter of weeks before that $2 becomes $5 and he will have less in his take home.

These are the people that lawmakers want to protect. Still, I disagree that they need to increase the threshold because these gamblers will likely resort to unlicensed or underground casinos that offer a lower deposit threshold.

This is regulation. If the regulators in the country imposed it, the gambling sites will not have option than to comply.

But the disadvantage is that they are only restricting many people to gamble and they might start preferring means to avoid the restriction. I mean the people that wants to use low amount of money to gamble.

Another disadvantage is that some people will not have option than to use higher amount of money to gamble.  I can be earning $300 but prefer to use $25 to gamble, but this can let me use $175 to gamble instead.

You know increasing minimum deposit to $175 also   they prevent you using your ewallet for gambling purpose is just save the financially weak people from super easy betting access on online gambling. Even they set legal age for gambling is 21 to prevent insolvent folks relying on gambling as income source. But by doing these, they are hitting the industry hard. I could see, stocks like DigiPlus fall in 10% after the move was announced, as investors feared a sharp drop in user base from lower income gamblers. The Bangko Sentral and Catholic Bishops’ Conference uttered support, they said that to prevent addiction, such a decision should be taken. But my concern is that it will push gamblers to the black market, and they could head up to unregulated platforms.

For some gamblers, it can be a deterrent, but as you know, gamblers, especially addicted ones, will find a way to gamble even if they are doing it illegally. in short, while it could prevent some, it could also push other to seek illegal gambling sites just so they can gamble.

if the Philippines actually wants to change something, it needs to target the younger generation. They need to push strong gambling awareness education just like how they did when they pushed the strong anti-smoking awareness to the younger generation, which had a positive effect after the long run.

this limitation would be ethically questionable, because then you are taking something away from people. gambling is a desire for some people to go out and have fun, to go sightseeing or on vacation, and everyone should be able to enjoy that. so increasing the minimum deposit for this reason alone would be going against people's equality of rights.

also, if this limit is increased more than it should be, probably most casinos will either downsize or close down. because gambling is usually done by people who can afford to make deposits below this set amount.

Here in our country, the poor sectors borrow money from 5/6 or those who lend money at 20% interest, and you need to pay daily within a month.

With the increase in the deposit threshold, the 5/6 lender’s business will thrive; The problem of gambling here in our country can be attributed to influencers who encourage people to gamble with a small amount for the potential of a big profit.

The influencers are making a lot of money from promoting gambling, while the poor sectors are suffering from these false advertisements.

Mr Charles you are absolutely correct as it is enforceable by the regulators if they deem it necessary, unfortunately, I have not seen the regulators pay much attention to such things as they believe that they already have fine laws governing gambling. The only country that I know of that actually pay attention to such matters is Australia but they have not been too effective at preventing their citizens from gambling as they please even though this issue of deposit limits have been a subject of discussion in that country.

If you look at the practicality of such responsibility, you will end up becoming confused chasing such complicated matters because it must be treated on a case-by-case basis since different people have different risk appetite and what might mean wastage in gambling might just be peanut to the next person so what will then be the benchmark and on what basis will it be determine? If you say during signing ups, users specify their income range and such range can be used to fix their deposit limits. This is true but does it mean the limit cannot change since someone can get a new job and get his finances improved? There are too many things that makes this practically difficult to implement, hence the burden of gambling addiction is on the gambler.

This is interesting, I just heard about the government issuing a law for minimum deposit restrictions. We know the intention is to suppress poor gamblers who are potentially addicted to gambling. Not using the little money they have for their living needs, but instead using it to bet.
Every policy certainly elicits positive and negative responses. But it is quite reasonable to implement, especially if the target is gamblers among students. Although there will still be loopholes, but it will definitely reduce the number of poor gamblers. Regardless of whether it succeeds in reducing the number of gambling addicts or not, the data will answer. Because if those who are already addicted to gambling, the door to the game is closed, then they will look for another door.

Clownery  ;D As always, officials can't think of anything better than to cause inconvenience to people.
Moreover, it looks like discrimination - it turns out that the poor are not people at all and cannot have fun the way the rich can, and this is not established naturally, but forcibly - by law. The result, as always, will be the opposite - if there is demand, but the law prohibits satisfying it, then a black market will emerge and poor players will spend more time on underground platforms.

No.  People who meet the deposit threshold can just look for another casino to play.  Gambling addiction is a matter of self-control.  Even if each casino minimizes the deposit threshold to $10, people who are hooked on gambling will always look for ways to gamble.  It is not the amount of deposit that makes a person addicted to gambling; it is its exposure and lack of self-control or personal vulnerability that trigger gambling addiction.

Yes, it has a very good chance of reducing the activity of gamblers or poor gamblers from being addicted too, it's a good strategy adopted but the fact is it denies the people access to what they desire which is very bad too in a moral sense. But if the government believes that their people are lossing it to gambling then they can reduce or control the situation with this strategy.

This is a law that will be enacted which means it's going to be imposed on all casinos licenced to operate in the country so there is no way out for the poor except for those who are smart enough to use VPN or any kind of tools to escape the law which is also another breaking of the law that has a punishment if caught.

If the minimum deposit is increased its definitely going to affect a lot of people hence it will have effect on the gambling activities of the people in that country. Even though it's a matter of self control but this is a matter of national control.

In short, increasing the minimum deposit could minimize addiction of the gamblers from the poverty line. I think that it will because they'll have to think seriously whether they will have to go through and deposit that minimum amount if that's a week or two or a month of their salary. Someone who's out of their minds might do this because they're severely addicted to gambling but, the majority might think twice before they do the deposit and this will completely push them away from most of the gambling platform. Otherwise, they'll still find a way to gamble even at a lower minimum deposit through other platforms.

This isnt really a permanent solution to completely eradicate gambling addiction, although it can help in mitigating irresponsible gambling in the poor sector for a little while but they will always find an alternative... They can simply look for another casino they can use...This can actually make more sense if the law makers make this law a general thing, meaning that every online and physical casino would adopt it..But if gambling is what makes people happy then there's no need for depriving them of it

This is a good initiative by the government but since it's only geographically wise it's not profitable to every other gamblers outside that country, it's good to level up the amount of deposit but one thing we should also consider is the fact most casinos has this inbuilt transaction within accounts and that will definitely be immune from the normal deposit because it's in the form of gifting players some cash. However group of gamblers can gang up to make a single deposit and share it amongst themselves, desperation always comes up with new ideas.

For sure I can say that you are misunderstanding this whole increase in threshold on gambling accounts, if the last minimum that you tend as addictive is $1 and the current increase is around $176 so what the heck is wrong with that, at least the law makers are giving the so called poor people according to you, more ability to increase their deposits a d it doesn't mean that they can not deposit any other smaller amounts as from $1 to $176 or so.

Fat chance.  Theyll dig it up somewhere - beg borrow, steal, whatever and  this is just playing whack-a-mole with problem gamblers.  Addicts dont quit cause you make it inconvenient.  Theyll just find another vice thats easier to get to. 

Seems to me this is a classic case of politicians taking a sledgehammer approach instead of actually trying to understand and solve the root causes behind compulsive gambling.  Slapping band-aids on the problem by making it barely harder for addicts to place bets.  But it wont stop them - they need help and support, not just another hoop to jump through before they can feed their addiction. 

This is funny because this is like when they increased the tax on soda to almost 10% because they wanted to reduce the incidents of diabetes that comes with increased consumption of soda. It did not work. People simply adjusted to the new hike in price of soda.

In the same vein a law that increases deposit threshold for gambling is likely not going to work. Gamblers will always find a way and just to it. Rather what they should do in addition to this is to increase the education and our awareness around gambling addiction. That would help to.

Let's check the difference between $1 - $175, this is a very huge margin. If this new regulation would affect all gambling casino available in the country, then it will impact more than half the total number of gamblers with the way they gamble, but it could also be useless when there is way to gamble in casino without threshold requirements.

If deposit requirement is huge, the poor are hardly going to have enough to deposit, but what happens to the poor gamblers who plays only for the fun with their little bankroll, they won't have the chance after that, violation in a way.

To increase deposit threshold is a good idea, but it will start to make gambling look like an activity for rich, when it should be for everyone. I dont think that this idea will help a lot. Those who want to gamble, they will find a way to get $175 instead of $1, but, if they lose, their life will be much worse than if they would have lost $1. If $175 is a huge amount for your region, then addicted gambler will turn into those who think about suicide or commiting a crime to get money for new deposit.

I highly doubt it. There are almost always shortcuts, and in this case, there will be a way to deposit less money, perhaps some casinos may not be following the regulation, or people will simply turn to casinos' not falling under this jurisdiction. Will it make it harder for those near poverty level to gamble? Definitely yes, is that a good thing? It certainly is, but in this case, this isn't a black and white scenario, as it'll also prohibit legitimate players who wouldn't want to deposit such amounts. On the other hand, this doesn't promise that someone who meets this considerable amount for the minimum deposit, won't immediately blow their money away.

In the short term, yes it stops the people from participating because the difference from $1 to $175 is huge so imagine those who deposit $20 or less will not have no other choice, they might have to take loans, but what if they decided to feed their gambling addiction over anything. For example, if they decided to spend all their earnings on gambling but in the past they can deposit small amount that left them with something. ::)

Long term effect, it can be even better, it eliminates the upcoming people who got small money but want to gamble so they can only if they have enough money and with the process of making money they will also learn how to spend it.

The government is just trying to prevent and offer the best solution (according to them), but there are always alternatives to gambling. Gamblers have many ways to indulge their gambling desires, such restrictions will only encourage them to find other alternative casinos and they will gamble there. The deposit threshold is just an attempt by the government to prevent, but it does not mean they can stop gambling among the poor.

Positive impacts can be expected from such regulations, but negative impacts also exist. In countries where gambling is legal, such regulations really make the government lose a lot of revenue from the gambling industry. I don't think the government will issue such regulations there, but if gambling has become a big problem in that country, then the government is obliged to take action.

The theory is great, but I believe that, in practice, instead of minimizing addiction, it could end up leading people to gamble illegally, running more risks than if they were to gamble in regulated casinos, as they could end up getting into debt with criminals, and this will become a vicious cycle that will be increasingly difficult to break out of. In my opinion, this law will hinder more than it will help.

Instead of limiting deposits, this amount of $175 could be the maximum monthly amount for bets, and based on KYC-type checks, the limits could be increased according to stipulated levels (it's just an idea that came to mind, I haven't done any studies on the subject, so I don't know how it would work, how it could be done, or maybe it's an idea as useless as the law  ;D).

Sometimes is totally out of place to think that limit thresholds can help in eradicating gambling addictions or even reducing it in the first place, most of the times those that engage it this dont tell the entire truths in what gambling addiction eradication takes to achieve it, since is obvious that limiting your expenditure alon can stop you from gambling in the end.

War against gambling addiction is more of an individual internal decision fight and for that, one need tk be convinced from within, to be able fight against the hold of gambling addiction  and iver coming it in the end.

Increasing the minimum deposit limit will not stop gambling addiction. Maybe for new customers or gamblers who want to try gambling they will not force themselves to gamble. But for old gamblers, they will try to find a way to keep gambling. And now you can see how gambling is developing today even though in your area there are local sites that have such rules, gamblers will switch to crypto gambling or other gambling sites that have lower minimum deposit limits. Maybe it will have a bad impact on the gambling business in your area but gamblers have many ways to be able to bet.

The efforts they put into restricting gambling activities, if they can do the same In other aspects then they'd make significant progress. Well, this wouldn't be a permanent way to stop gambling in the poor sector because if those poor people are addicts they would definitely find a way to keep gambling. There are other ways these category of people can keep gambling, this cannot solve an addiction problem

I confess that I am shocked by this law. It seems that the poor do not have the right to spend their own money, which was earned through their sacrifice. If the government is determining that the poor must have a limit on how they can gamble, then the government is giving orders to the poor on how they should use their money.

In my opinion, this should be illegal. I do not know what is written in the Philippine Constitution, but in most countries the Constitution gives all people the same rights and duties and it is up to the people to manage their own money. It is wrong for a government to discriminate against people.

The law is usually slow and takes a lot of time to adapt
I don’t think a limit helps so much since a person could use many accounts or create accounts on several different services. But to some extent it may help

But after all. People should be free to decide how they want to spend their money and their time

Measures like this and even more are very brilliant ways to handle cases of addiction control amongst gamblers,  because if the minimum deposit amount is very huge, these gamblers will think of it and will apply some restrains seeing that ist something they may not be able to afford, they will rather use their money on something else because they will see it that it is too high to loose such amount because it is something they cannot afford to loose.

That’s a smart initiative. What the government should focus on first is eliminating illegal gambling, since legal operators will most likely comply with whatever regulations they impose.

Even if digital wallets are linked to casinos, it won’t necessarily make gambling more accessible for the average person, especially with high deposit minimums. I mean, who would deposit $175 when that’s even higher than the daily minimum wage in the country? Most people simply can’t afford to gamble at that level.

This might be a little bit of help to reduce gambling activities among the poor, but do your regulatory authorities think that gambling addictions only happen among the poor? Even the rich get addicted, but the addictions of the poor are more visible compared to how the rich can't be seen everywhere.

Some casinos have an option that allows account-to-account transfer of funds, which, even if this increase in threshold deposit will affect them, a group of individuals can decide to make use of an account of a trusted person, fund it with the minimal amount, and transfer among each other, or, better still, there can be some agent around who can just specialize in doing that. No rules, and police can provide a 100% success rate.

Whoever organized that bill is greedy, and wants more profits. Do not underestimate the strength of compulsive players, building a rehab is better than signing this to law. Because, this won't stop them, it'll only make them save up or do crazy things to gather the complete amount and pay - that's another huge pay check for the house and government.

In my country, gambling is actually prohibited and will be punished if it is organized and also done. But does that mean there is no gambling? NO, wrong, in fact the number of losses due to gambling and addiction is getting higher and higher, especially due to online gambling.

And if there is a rule by increasing the minimum deposit, this is mostly one way that can be done, but only for local online casinos. Meanwhile, the community, when they are unable to do this, will definitely choose some deposits in global casino gambling that can only be done with small money. So, if it's online, it's quite difficult to stop.

Yeah because a lot of those who gamble are in the low to middle class so they will surely not deposit this big amount of money because first of all they don’t have it. Second, even if they did, they should know better than to use it for gambling. I think this can be a solution.

I am in favor of this rule. Because it's no longer a secret that our country has been infested by local and international casinos where even our government is having an headache on the growing number of gambling addicts. These gambling addicts are really spending their money for gambling that should be for the food to their tables. And they're even borrowing money after losing a lot of money and maybe a bi-week to a month of salary, they don't mind losing it because they can always ask for a loan. But the problem is they're only losing and we all know how casinos are built for. So, on top of a loan, they get another loan. And they don't even know where to get their next meal, what a mess. Another issue is about the cockpit gamblers that have been killed and buried in the Taal Lake due to cheating as they're targeted of the probable owner of the gambling platform they've used.

I don't think it is a good idea. Increasing the deposit amount will cause people, especially the poor, to increase their bankroll. When these guys had to deposit the small money they had, they still got addicted. Will increasing the amount stop them from gambling? No, they will sell their properties just to gamble. They will go as far as taking loans just to gamble. The poor see gambling as their hope.

Once they increase the minimums it should discourage countless gamblers from playing, but they'll eventually find a way to play and bypass this threshold, I already see a few suggestions from the posts above.

It's far from the best solution, but at least it's a start given how widespread gambling has become recently. This reminds me of another country that had a similar plan during the covid days, and one of their guys was worried about the same thing.

The government has good intentions but this law has its own effect. With this proposed increase in gambling deposits, the government is simply driving more people into poverty.  Gamblers will take loans, and since they will pay interest, it becomes a financial burden.  Since the root cause of the increase in gambling disorder is the uncontrollable or unregulated activities of influencers,  the state should have focused on that area. The activities of these influencers should be checked regularly.

Right, there could be gamblers who can find loopholes in this so called deposit threshold. And as far as $1 goes, not sure why is that the minimum, I mean you can even buy anything for that amount, let more play and gamble.

If they really wanted to really out law gambling, then simply ban it. But the government might not do that because the backers of this casinos might have been paying them millions or billions and so they needed them. Gambling addiction in any country is rampant, and it's really very hard to stop just by increasing the amount of the minimum deposit.

This could work, yeah, or what exactly do you think? This can actually work, a minimum deposit of $175 could indeed go a long way in making sure that the poor have a had time participating in gambling again since and if they can not afford this amount of money to deposit in the casino.

But on the other hand, this is also if casinos will honor the law if and when the bill passes, because it is one thing to make a law, and it is another for affected parties to obey it, if casino will obey the law, then this could cub gambling addiction from poor people in the country, but may as well increase crime a bit because already addicted people may want to find a means of raising this money to deposit and continue to play, even if it means stealing it.

Hmm actually there is a possibility that the deposit threshold can trigger gambling addiction in the poor sector, because they can do it with little money, so for the poor usually will try to want to change their fate in gambling.

About this law only applies in one country, maybe the government wants to emphasize the number of gambling addictions but this fact will not be that easy because there is always a way for casinos to be able to do it with a threshold.

While for other countries, they can still make small minimum deposits and this cannot be avoided.

Increasing the minimum deposit amount is unlikely to help in the fight against gambling addiction. This will only embitter the poor and will be perceived as another mockery of the rich against the poor. At the same time, addicted gamblers will come up with ways to circumvent the restrictions. Up to the point that, for example, they can make a collective deposit and then choose one who will press the button in the slot while the others are watching the game... Such a restrictive measure as the deposit threshold can reduce the influx of newcomers to the casino, but in general, prohibitive measures do not work well if the root cause is not eliminated. Especially if the population was previously accustomed to gambling.

This is the first time I see such laws and this is a huge food for thought! Well, it sounds very interesting and practical, because really poor people will not be able to make small bets, because of which they will consider gambling as a way to earn money. Because this is an extremely wrong way to perceive gambling, it is a means of entertainment and stress relief. Therefore, I think that this law is quite sound and will probably be effective.

I believe that the government of your country has seen how gambling addiction is affecting it's citizens and they came up with this strategy to reduce addiction on the poor. The law is a step in the right direction but it'll work mainly for the ordinary poor gamblers who are not ready to risk such huge amounts for the deposit. For the degenerate poor addicts I think that it will cause them more harm than good, they will look for the money by all means to fund their gambling wallets. I think that the government can go a step further by addressing the dangers of irresponsible gambling and addiction. People should know why they don't need to gamble with money that they cannot afford to loose.

It's possible that many won't follow the regulations and they'd choose the offshore ones that will only require them to have the minimal deposits.

The legit gamblers will have no problem on this. It's just about the deposit and they for sure have a lot of money for the required higher deposits if it becomes a law.

It's not about blowing their money away but limiting who's going to gamble.

Increasing the minimum deposit can be one of the possible ways to reduce number of gambling addiction but the main problem is "will the casino want to increase the mininum deposit?"
Casinos are business and they do not care who you are no matter you are poor or rich, as long as you can make deposit and play in the casino then they will be always welcoming you.
So if they have to increase minimum deposit, they will lose big number of players which means that it will affect their main purpose of the business.

This is a good suggestion however casino will suffer some losses here if they implement this because the majority of casino players online came from that low bankroll player.

I think having a threshold on the amount we can loss is already enough to control addiction rather than increase the limit of deposits because some people might push to gamble higher funds even though they can’t afford it already just to meet the minimum deposit.

A gambler mind is always determined to gamble regardless of the minimum deposit amount.

No its not. This is not solution to combat addiction since if gambling still exist people are still prone to experience addiction.

If they really want to help people to get away with this situation a total banning of all gambling platform must be implemented. Since this is I think the best solution they could do to fight any possible abuse that might happen.

Also it seems that there's someone still benefiting on that industry in Philippines that's why its hard for them to eliminate these industry in Philippines.

$175 is a very large amount, this limit can keep a poor gambler away from gambling. Although this limitation is quite expensive for a rich person. However, it can keep gamblers away from gambling to some extent, but if you make such a limitation law only on one platform or one casino house, it will not work very well because even though the number of casino sites offline is less, there are a lot of casino sites online where you can gamble with even a small amount of money and they will never leave gamblers behind. If someone likes gambling, he will try to gamble there. So only this casino can avoid their responsibility by making a law, but in reality it cannot keep poor gamblers away from gambling completely.

That means they only want the rich people to participate in gambling. How much is the minimum wage in your country? If it's below $175, let's say it's $50 and most people that are receiving this salary are gamblingere, that means they can not be able to afford gambling. If they are spending 70% of the salary on their needs and 20% on savings, it means they will need to save 10% ($5) every month for 35 months before they can be able to accumulate $175 for gambling. I think it's unfair and it's going to slow down the casino's business.

Since gambling is not ban in your country, I trust that citizens will even divert to using other online casinos that is not control in your country.

It's actually an interesting and clever strategy, sometimes you need to help people in inventive ways that have gotten into some rather self destructive habits. I feel like only a fraction of the population in the Philippines will ever meet that threshold that looks rather low to certain other countries, so it allows casinos to operate internationally without making them a problem for the locals. It's a creative solution but it will probably face a lot of resistance from very rich gambling companies who have a tendency to "donate" to political candidates that will support crushing the bill. There is a lot of money floating around this industry and we see time after time that it is able to influence the highest level of politician in any country.

You are right and then the losses would be much compare to then they were depositing as low as $1 , for instance you can expect someone that manage to funds his account and same time a strong gambling addict Won’t make use of all his deposited funds .

With such amount as the threshold the rate of losing will increase, and their losses will worsen compared to before , though such will prevent others from gambling those who can’t afford to deposit such amounts while ruining those that are able to .

This pattern is near effective and not really effective as much. They'll only end up lowering the traffic on the casino. It might not really go well with the casino on a long-term.

A better option should be not to allow deposits from the same person more than 5 times a day. That way the poor people would not get as addicted since they cannot use the casino more than they can deposit, so they would have lots of time off the casino as well in order to limit addiction while still maintaining the casino in business.

An effective auditing system should be introduced too to enforce the casino compliance on this.

I feel it can become ineffective in the long run if the users adapt to the new limits and decided that is the normal amount to deposit, even if it's 100x more than what they used to do. But from the regulators there's only so much can be done and stopping when it's getting out of hands is the sole responsibility of the gambler rather than the regulators. What they can do is create more awareness about addiction in general and how it can affect the individuals and who are dependent on them.

I think that it can work. In my country it is about medium week salary, and i don`t ready to risk such sum. About age it is good idea too. Young men often don`t have enough money for all that they want and they always search a way to get fast and easy money. They think that gambling is a good way to become rich fast. Big deposit and age restrictions can stop at least a part of silly gamblers from losing.

So the idea is to increase the minimum deposit, so the poor can no longer gamble, what about the responsible poor people who enjoy gambling, it is unfair to them and could even push them to deposit all of their savings into the casino. This law can also affect the middle class, because through this law some of them are forced to deposit far more than they would have, and this may make them gamble more and lose more money.

I am not in support of laws like this, instead people should be educated on responsible gambling and addiction too, forcing everyone to deposit above a certain high amount is unfair and could negatively affect casino revenue.

Up to $175 can be a low amount of money for a rich country and that could probably minimise gambling addiction in places where $3000 is an average monthly income but in countries like Philippines where $339 is an average monthly income, $175 deposit threshold can't minimize gambling addiction because usually poor people are addicted to gambling and up to $175 is a lot of money for a poor person from that country. That threshold will only worsen situation for casinos because rich people won't be able to deposit more money and it will lower the casino's income, which will result in lower amount of money paid by them in taxes.

I feel these kind of regulations and change in gambling laws would only create a void in the market which will be inevitably filled by a new service or underground casino which will be offering minimum deposits of one dollar. It only takes a single crime syndicate or corrupt politician with enough power, so they can start to fill the void left by legitimate casinos and betting services.
Politicians like those in the Philippines believe that in a open and free market offer determines demands, when it is exactly the contrary: as long as there is demand, there will always be offer/supply, those gambling services aiming towards the poor and needy will just come from other source and the state won't be able to collect their tax from underground/ unregulated casinos.

This minimum deposit can indeed attract many people to gambling, but most of those who deposit the minimum amount are determined to win, which can actually lead to addiction. It's very rare for people to deposit the minimum amount, but they do so simply for fun.
I'm not convinced this minimum deposit limit can minimize the addiction factor; in fact, it's possible that it could lead to addiction for many people, especially those who are poor. They could become addicted after just one try.

I see another useless decision here. Why create gambling as something for privileged people, for those who are rich. Imho it should be available for everyone. But if there is such a huge desire to limit something, then make a limit for withdrawal. Deposit 10 bucks, can withdraw 30 only and see you next day. Also limit session, those who won x3 of their deposit, cant gamble anymore today. This is still a limitation that I dont like, yet still everyone can gamble, but people wont gamble too much. People could make another account, but they risk getting banned.

Those people who are very desperate that they will ever be able to improve their living conditions are ready to believe even in completely stupid plans for enrichment. And of course, this includes such strange methods as online casinos with minimum bets.
For example, if a housewife, out of boredom, went into such a casino and thought that such a minimum bet is not serious money at all, then this is her first step towards addiction to gambling.
And as soon as she wins even with this tiny bet, she will extrapolate this to all subsequent bets, and will think that she can get rich, and will also tell this thought to her friends, creating an "advertisement" for the casino.

It might have come from a noble thought but the idea is wrong. It would make people lose more than they used to. A threshold won't stop a gambler for gambling, they'd now be putting larger portions of their monthly income or in cases pool together a couple of months income to gamble.
If possible, the ideal idea would be to limit people's max deposited amount depending on their income which should be proved by the gambler themselves through tax they paid.

Of course, these regulations will have a significant impact, especially on poor people who like to gamble. However,  this will certainly have both positive and negative effects. The negative effect is that these poor people will definitely try to find ways to earn more money for gambling, one of which is by going into debt. This may happen when a gambler has entered the addiction phase. On the other hand, this rule is also unpleasant for those who only allocate a small amount of money for gambling as a form of entertainment, leaving them with only two options (spend more money or stop gambling).

That's also a good idea. But it also limits the person from withdrawing everything. What if he won x500 of his bet, and the gambler only deposited 5 percent of it? He might want to withdraw it all in just one transaction, and if he is being limited to do so, then he might just look for another online casino that will offer a better option.

It's actually difficult to create a rule that would benefit both sides and would also minimize gambling addiction, because it might hurt those who want to gamble more and can afford it.

Sometimes such decisions are made just to create conversations, in this way standing out among other casinos, and when it becomes widely known, to offer a good advertising campaign to attract even more clients.
I wouldn’t take such slogans seriously.

I believe this move by our government could significantly reduce gambling activity, though it won’t eliminate it entirely. USD 175 is a substantial amount here, and not everyone can afford to spend that kind of money just to enjoy casino games. That’s why I was surprised they didn’t go through with implementing that fee. Instead, they chose to unlink casino platforms from e-wallets—a decision I personally think isn’t very effective.

I think what the members have said here is that it's for "getting rid" of gambling entirely, but from what I've read in news reports, it's to help individuals who are struggling financially to think twice about using money to gamble or for necessities.

Perhaps there are ways to have that approach, where the government still earns from taxes, but the welfare of individuals is what I care about. Maybe there would be mental health support for those who are addicted. Perhaps that could be a solution for those people who are addicted.

That's true, I also consider the idea noble in theory, but in practice it is useless.
Gambling addicts will not stop simply by raising the minimum deposit. Rather, they will seek alternatives and other ways to circumvent this new law.

The worst thing, as you mentioned, is for a gambler to accumulate two months' income to deposit and gamble. In this case, if he loses, he will have lost two months' income. And this is big problem for poor people with limited income.

The government must address the root cause of the poor's gambling addiction. Most of these poor people become addicted to gambling to try to improve their income and escape poverty. Therefore, the government must address the root cause of the problem.

Some may be discouraged by how high the minimum deposit is. But I believe gamblers will find a way to play. Either they will play in overseas casinos or save up so they can afford the minimum deposit. Don’t forget, there are even gamblers who take out loans just so they can gamble. But those who aren’t techy enough will probably lay low on gambling. The question now is, when? There are a lot of opposing parties, and they won’t back down easily since it involves their business, not to mention there are people getting under the table pay to always be on their side.

I already see some intermediaries who will collect money and pay for tickets for everyone... it may be complicated at first, but people will get used to it. And that's like a good option... other options always involve illegal activities and dark markets where things can be messed up.

So "deposit threshold" can't minimize anything... people will just find another way, some way. It's something that stupid politicians don't understand, energy never disappears. So instead of investing in education, culture, good jobs, and smart things, they invest in more control & they create more laws so they can have even more control...

I don’t think I can agree with that. From $1 minimum to $175, that’s a huge jump and there should be a big decline in gamblers who will still play. Not everyone can afford $175 minimum, but $1 is easy to come up with.

That’s why I think this bill could actually help minimize gambling addiction. Those who don’t have a steady or good income won’t be able to deposit. In our country the average income is around $10 per day, so imagine a $175 minimum, that’s even higher than their weekly salary. For sure that will discourage a lot of people from gambling.

The Philippine government is apparently still complaining about the large number of low-income citizens who continue to gamble. According to them, the reason they can continue to gamble online is because many casinos still accept deposits via e-wallets, which have low minimum transaction limits. The proposal is to require deposits only through banks. well, believe it or not, I'm sure there will always be loopholes to accept small deposits.

^{https://manilastandard.net/news/314631518/tulfo-eyes-bank-only-payments-to-curb-online-gambling.html}

I don't believe it because that will depend on how we limit ourselves. But it is no problem if our lawmakers believe it because they really want to control the number of addicted people to gambling.

Limiting the age of people who can play gambling also helps because it prevents minors from playing gambling easily. They should pass the strict verification from the casinos but they can not gamble because of their age. It will be easy if they ask for help from the adults so they can pass the verification.

But no matter if the law is strict, people can find other ways that will give them a chance to gamble. They will still like that because they want to make money from gambling. It needs awareness to realize that gambling is not a source of income.

I don't that would actually work. If they want to minimize gambling addiction - It would be better for them to just shut it down completely. Authorities pressuring the online casinos into this kind of gambling rules, especially that they know people would get upset over this, gave them the idea that online casinos may bleed a lot of money just to allow some considerations. Yeah, there's a lot of money in gambling (if you own one). Imagine, when your social media page starts to get monetized, in just 24-48 hrs there will be an offer coming from these casinos to promote them in a fairly generous offer.
That's what makes these law makers and authorities turn their heads to the online gambling industry today. Remember, governments loves to put their fingers in things where it bares a lot of money.

The minimize gambling deposit can really influenced gamblers to be addicted because since the depositing amount is small they would not mind to deposit the minimum deposit amount and gamble and when it has been exhausted, they can still top up again and continue the gambling from there. I see that as gambling as a gambler's mind to win big one day and that is why he has not given up. And the gambler would always saved money to gamble but if the minimum deposit is big then he would not have that much to play game at all time.
Whether small or big play gamble according to your capability.

Governments won't shut down casinos because they make a lot of money from them through taxes and the like. Therefore, I don't expect them to seek to shut them down. Even if the government wanted to, casinos would not comply with government orders and would always find a way to operate in secret.

This happens in many Islamic countries that prohibit gambling, where hundreds of casinos operate underground. Many people there also gamble in secret despite strict laws prohibiting gambling.

Yes I think if the minimum deposit limit is higher then many people will just avoid gambling all together.

Its no different if you go to a casino. Most people will put $1 or $2 inside a slot machine. However if they approach some Poker table which says "Min bet $50" then many will completely avoid that game because for many people $50 is considered a large amount.

Raising the age to 21 is common sense, minors shouldn't be allowed to gamble. In some areas gambling is allowed at 18 but that is still too young. The younger a person is, the more prone they are to getting addicted to gambling.

This law will also affect the gambling activity of responsible gamblers who cannot afford the increased minimum deposit. Some poor people use small amounts that don't affect them adversely and they enjoy gambling.

If the government increases the gambling age in my country many casinos will lose a large portion of their biggest customers. Young people are the most popular users of online gambling platforms. I guess the government would not do it because it would reduce the revenue generated from the sector. But I support an increase because younger people are more prone to addiction.     

It’s true that online gambling brings huge amounts of money and that alone attracts attention from both authorities and lawmakers and the idea of regulating instead of shutting it down completely seems more about controlling the flow rather than fully preventing addiction while regulations might include things like deposit limits or warning messages they often don’t address the underlying psychological factors that drive gambling addiction people who are prone to compulsive behavior can still find ways around rules or push themselves to take risks and the impact of these measures may be limited at best.

Pressuring casinos to follow certain rules may reduce some immediate risks but it doesn’t remove the core problem of gambling addiction and in many cases it’s just a way to show oversight while still letting the industry profit the potential for huge revenue means governments are naturally interested and sometimes compromises happen because shutting it down completely would remove that stream of money authorities may appear strict on paper but the economic incentives of the gambling industry often outweigh the intention to protect citizens fully and this creates a situation where rules exist more for appearances than effectiveness.

Even with regulations in place the incentives for online casinos to promote themselves and attract players remain strong and social media and advertising channels make it easy to reach new audiences quickly casinos will continue to push promotions bonuses and other marketing tactics to keep players engaged and people who are susceptible to gambling problems can be drawn in despite limits so while rules might slow things down a little the combination of big money aggressive promotion and human behavior makes it extremely difficult to fully protect people from the addictive nature of gambling and this shows why some argue that only a complete shutdown could truly minimize the risks.

Even doing this, it’s now easier to create bank account now that bank allow online registration to open an account that only requires 1 valid ID and selfie.

Even if online casino allow only bank deposits I’m sure gambler will just create an account. There’s no stopping to online casino problem in the Philippines unless they regulate it properly by limiting the amount of each player can deposit based on the level of financial strength that can be assessed through higher level of KYC.

All this restrictions is nonsense if in the end online casino is still allowed to be play in PH.

Raising the deposit threshold from $1 to $175 could reduce impulsive gambling among the poor by making entry more difficult, but it doesn’t really address addiction itself. Instead many users still risks excluding casual players, hurting the legal gambling industry, and pushing problem gamblers toward underground or unregulated platforms deposit caps and stronger safeguards may be a more balanced solution.

It may limit addicted person on a lower level to lose more but its like they have been remove of their privilege on this kind of stuff. For me its really hard to apprehended gambling anymore unless people are disciplined enough to comply.

By simple logic, increasing the minimum deposit with such a huge percentage may reduce the possibility of gambling addiction because only people with good financial condition will be able to deposit. However, gamblers who are affected with this law will try to find other casinos with lower minimum bet because I believe not all casinos will be willing to follow the rules by the government because they are doing business.

Minimum deposit means the casinos will take a hit. It also means that the poorer population will try to amass money to gamble or they might stop gambling. Basic needs come first and after that only gambling comes, so if less than this amount arrives and get spent on daily necessities then there is no point of giving a thought to gambling.

So this threshold might act to curb some gambling problems. Once it is put in place, if it works out, then it will become clear how people are trying to circumvent it.

One thing I fear is that some people might try to take loans to gamble even more. Then lone sharks will get a open season.

Like creative and addictive gamblers wont find a way go pass deposit limits. Multi accounts, such as opening account for mother, father, sister, brother and etc. Dont forget number of documents available for purchase online, additionally to illegal gambling. Limits is a great motivator to go into shadow. Btw nice logic, at first a person could have lost only few dollars, not gamblers would lose minimally 175, and with their salaries its less chances to get out from debt hole :D Bravo. 

The difference between one dollar to deposit and 175 is huge and I hope it will really impact those gamblers who never start their journey and eventually become addicted.
Of course, one can always assume that there will be some exceptions, for example, one can assume a case where pools of gamblers will gather and put their money into one pool (having collected $175) to play from one account in an online casino, and then they will share the profit, but I think that only really desperate guys will do this.

I do think that increasing the deposit threshold can minimize the effects of addiction especially in the younger generation where it really matters. If lawmakers are aggressive into pushing this as a law, then this would definitely be a key in combatting gambling addiction to youth.


Wow, $175 (or Php 10,000) is a huge sum that not everyone can afford especially in the Philippines.

Will this combat against the exposure of young adults in the gambling world? YES.
Will this absolutely eliminate gambling in the country? NO.

Then again, this is a good start instead of creating laws that only opens into more problems. Sure, some rich young adults would have access to that kind of money but at least this targets the poor to middle sector in combating against gambling addiction.

Yes it really can since you will get hurt when you lose a lot and think about that we need to deposit huge amount again before we can gamble. For sure with this people might think about to quit immediately since they can't afford to deposit huge then lose their money anymore.

Unfortunately most of crypto casino is not enforcing it that's why lots of people can gamble even if they only have small amount of money. But if it happens that they set their minimum deposit requirements high for sure that there's huge decline might gonna happen. But also for sure casino don't want this to happen that's why they might not think about implement this since it can affect their casino.

Sounds like it'd make it worse to me, increasing the minimum means I will probably just bet more not less.
   I get its more awkward but the advantage and reason these low bets exist is for people to get to know the game which is only fair and if you lose  1 dollar or whatever low bet it doesnt matter.

When the player is more in control they are less likely to become a problem bettor and more adjusted and regular in their playing style.  Putting on a larger amount, possibly doubling that bigger stake and getting an early big win is more dangerous imo as we all know gambling is not always easy in the long run.

Well, in that case, gamblers will go to take out loans in order to have $175 on their account after which they can continue to enjoy the joys of online casinos. It is unlikely that this measure will stop anyone.

Despite any attempts to stop gamblers, they will always come up with something: you can always upload fake documents, use a VPN, or team up to place a bet. All this is not a fight against the causes, but a fight against the outcome of the state's bad attitude towards people.