Do you think casinos should be able to cap max wins based on their bankroll size

[Alphakilo]

Cap value on winning amount existed even before casinos were regulated, to save their bankroll from getting rekt by a lucky bastard.

I wonder why people in the gambling section are only finding out now that those limits existed....

Speaking of limits, this ticket with 15 matches if played a week ago:


would have earned a lucky bastard 88,531,359,590 , yeah, that's 88!!!! billions
Now show me the bookies that could have paid this out!  

This is why many casinos may find it a normal reasonable business practice and anti player practice to ensure transparency, to often cap max size wins based on their bankroll size. In some cases where the casino can pay such an amount and do not want to, regulators can come in to ensure and enforce clarity and fairness between casino and player max win size.

That's why it is a good practice to patronize and use a regulated and licensed platform so as not to fall victim of unfairness by casinos over max bet win size.

[AVE5]

Do you think that actually restricting wins based on bankroll is reasonable business practice or do you think that it goes too far and becomes anti-player?

The essence of casino's setting max wins in their platforms is to keep reputations where they can actually be able to pay winners who might be hitting the jackpots without giving excuses of insufficient funds on their bank rolls, they also don't want to pay winners who might win up to the value that'd cripple the company.
There's not anti there and this in turn should also remind us players that we should bet according to our bank rolls and strictly what we can afford to loose.
This is a verse versa that the casino have to set their winning limits and so also players too setting up their own bank rolls shouldn't be biased. It's all of curbing risk tolerance and keeping responsibility that should be sustainable in the game for a long time.

[Kasabus]

I wonder why people in the gambling section are only finding out now that those limits existed....

Speaking of limits, this ticket with 15 matches if played a week ago:

That’s a huge parlay win. Is that covered by any limit?

In slots I know there’s usually a max win cap. But in sports betting, once the bet is accepted, they have to pay it out. The only “limit” they can impose is on how much they allow you to stake before the bet is placed. But once it’s on the ticket, they shouldn’t be capping your winnings anymore.

[junder]

Working in the industry, I can attest that managing a casinos bankroll is more complicated than simply setting high limits and letting it run.

Although some players do think that maximum wins or bet caps are unjust, a casino obviously cannot always accept unrestricted exposure without risking stability from a backend perspective. It's more important to continue operating in the event of a significant win than it is to "not want to pay."

But also something that I think most players don't actually know is that some gambling licenses and jurisdictions actually require operators to set win limits as part of their risk and compliance obligations they have to follow.

However, I do understand how that it can appear negative to a player, particularly if they are informed that they have reached a "limit" following a legitimate victory.

Do you think that actually restricting wins based on bankroll is reasonable business practice or do you think that it goes too far and becomes anti-player?

Limiting maximum winnings based on the size of the bankroll or the size of the bet is perfectly reasonable. If I were a casino owner, I would definitely do this by limiting the maximum winnings based on the bet size and the amount of money players deposit. After all, the goal of a casino is to make a profit, so casino owners must be smart about how they manage everything.
I'm sure you're familiar with slot games like Gate of Olympus, for example. There are huge wins possible if you're lucky enough to win, and this is determined by the size of your bet.

[Bitinity]

Did you mean that gamblers must have cap for the amount of money that they can use to gamble and which should determine the amount that gamblers can win?

No, I didnt mean that gamblers should be capped on the amount they bet or win, what I meant was that casinos actually having limits on their end. As some casinos actually set out payout or win caps based on their own bankroll to actually mange their own risk and to keep operations stable.

Sorry but I still don't understand this. Following Oshosondy's question: if casinos set limits on their end to keep their bankroll safe, would't it imply that, in practice, gamblers would also have a cap in the amount they can stake?

In simple way, a casino set a winning limit per bet which is something common in this industry as it is how they assure that they will be able to pay big winnings based on their bankroll. Of course this limit affect how much players can stake depending on the possible multiplier on the game. You can see some casinos will have (i) next to the bet amount column which is usually contain of information about max win limit.

[tami40]

Working in the industry, I can attest that managing a casinos bankroll is more complicated than simply setting high limits and letting it run.

Although some players do think that maximum wins or bet caps are unjust, a casino obviously cannot always accept unrestricted exposure without risking stability from a backend perspective. It's more important to continue operating in the event of a significant win than it is to "not want to pay."

But also something that I think most players don't actually know is that some gambling licenses and jurisdictions actually require operators to set win limits as part of their risk and compliance obligations they have to follow.

However, I do understand how that it can appear negative to a player, particularly if they are informed that they have reached a "limit" following a legitimate victory.

Do you think that actually restricting wins based on bankroll is reasonable business practice or do you think that it goes too far and becomes anti-player?

Limiting maximum winnings based on the size of the bankroll or the size of the bet is perfectly reasonable. If I were a casino owner, I would definitely do this by limiting the maximum winnings based on the bet size and the amount of money players deposit. After all, the goal of a casino is to make a profit, so casino owners must be smart about how they manage everything.
I'm sure you're familiar with slot games like Gate of Olympus, for example. There are huge wins possible if you're lucky enough to win, and this is determined by the size of your bet.

The restriction of the maximum winnings on the bankroll size or bet size is quite understandable. As a casino owner, I would certainly do it by restricting the maximum winnings in the betting size and money deposited by the players. After all, the purpose of a casino is to make money hence casino owners need to be clever on how they operate all that.
for example, I know slot games, such as Gate of Olympus. You are bound to win huge amounts in case you have the luck to win and this depends on the size of your bet.

[danherbias07]

Did you mean that gamblers must have cap for the amount of money that they can use to gamble and which should determine the amount that gamblers can win?

No, I didnt mean that gamblers should be capped on the amount they bet or win, what I meant was that casinos actually having limits on their end. As some casinos actually set out payout or win caps based on their own bankroll to actually mange their own risk and to keep operations stable.

I have tried to be a banker back in the days while we played "Lucky 9" (a card game here in PH), and I also set limits on how much I can pay in maximum. Why? Because that's all that I have in my wallet.

I think it's reasonable if a gambling site has the same type of limits ,especially when they have just opened or are new to the industry. But if they are servicing for years, I think it's enough time to get some profits and increase that bankroll or better, take it off and pay whatever they can.

[Betwrong]

~
Do you think that actually restricting wins based on bankroll is reasonable business practice or do you think that it goes too far and becomes anti-player?

No, I do think it's reasonable to cap max wins based on casino's capacity to pay out. Otherwise it would be a false promise, wouldn't it? You hit the jackpot and casino goes: "Oh, sorry, we don't have the funds." Who would like it? That's why I suggest playing only on established and prosperous platforms, if you win big there - they are able to give you your win.

[Mpamaegbu]

Do you think that actually restricting wins based on bankroll is reasonable business practice or do you think that it goes too far and becomes anti-player?

I think it's reasonable business practice. At least it helps protect the staying power of the casino so no gambler stakes what the casino can't pay out in the case of a win. It used to be a thing in my country about three decades ago when pools houses and their owners used to set maximum stake per an individual. Those who negated such company policy and managed to win were denied payouts. I know of a man who was a victim of that terms and condition.

It was when a particular pools house added no limitation to amount staked that such a rule became redundant as stakers gradually moved to the new kid on the bloc. Naturally, no one likes restriction even when they don't like moving around. For me, I believe such a limitation is okay than not having it and then not being able to pay out when wins occur.

[Fiatless]

Do you think that actually restricting wins based on bankroll is reasonable business practice or do you think that it goes too far and becomes anti-player?

Casinos should only entertain or accept risks they can bear. It is better to set a limit than to struggle to pay a winner. This policy is not against the players; in fact, it is for their good. Casinos should operate within their financial capacity to avoid struggling to fulfil responsibilities.   

[bestcandy]

We have lots of casinos here and from the information I gathered, each game have the maximum you can win, like the maximum multiplier. It does not depend on the amount jn your balance neither does your win depend on your status in the casino, when you win the maximum multiplier, it is multiplied by your bet amount simple and straight. You will also remember that each of the games in the casinos were developed by different people or organisations who also fixes the multipliers based on random sequence using algorithm.  The casino may not have the power to change this because they don't offer the licenses. 

[KiaKia]

Did you mean that gamblers must have cap for the amount of money that they can use to gamble and which should determine the amount that gamblers can win?

No, I didnt mean that gamblers should be capped on the amount they bet or win, what I meant was that casinos actually having limits on their end. As some casinos actually set out payout or win caps based on their own bankroll to actually mange their own risk and to keep operations stable.

This idea often comes from casinos that are new in the business, there is no way at a new casino will have millions on ground when they actually start running since a week ago.

They need time to grow and also spent the money they can get on advertising their online casinos, at first things are always tough for new casinos until high numbers of customers start to use the platform.

This is very normal, if anyone win a lot of money that the casino can't pay in one go they will have to pay the winner slowly, the winner have to understand this also because most times some gamblers only care about themselves.

[Slow death]

Casinos are private businesses, and while it's true they need licenses to operate, they also have the right to set their own rules. So, if the owner of casino X doesn't have a very large bankroll, then they should set a maximum winning limit to avoid bankruptcy. If the owner of another casino has a large bankroll, then they can set a very high winning limit. But in general, I think all casinos have some kind of limit.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Do you think that actually restricting wins based on bankroll is reasonable business practice or do you think that it goes too far and becomes anti-player?

Based on your explanation on the second quote, casinos are doing that to cut their risk of going bankrupt, right? If that's the reason, then it's a reasonable business practice because they are trying to prevent a situation where someone can win a huge amount that they will end going bankrupt after paying off that huge win. So I guess that's that reason they set that restriction. But another thing I'm thinking is that the casino already set a multiplayer and it's even difficult to hit a big multiplayer, so setting a restriction is also giving them more opportunity to stay in the balance as much as the multiplayers are doing too.

[stompix]

I wonder why people in the gambling section are only finding out now that those limits existed....

Speaking of limits, this ticket with 15 matches if played a week ago:

That’s a huge parlay win. Is that covered by any limit?
In slots I know there’s usually a max win cap. But in sports betting, once the bet is accepted, they have to pay it out. The only “limit” they can impose is on how much they allow you to stake before the bet is placed. But once it’s on the ticket, they shouldn’t be capping your winnings anymore.

All bookies have limits,  the only difference is that:
- Some tell you right from the start that only the x10 000 or x50 000 area is allowed
- Some let you bet, but when the ticket comes out, you see that the limit is 100k or 500k despite the odds being way higher
- Some don't say a word, but if you win 1.2 million with a dollar, suddenly there is a row in the T&S that there is a limit 100 lower than that they would honor

No bokie in this world is capable of paying a thing like the one I selected, not when it's 25% of all the money spent on gambling in the entire world.

[Wapfika]

That’s a huge parlay win. Is that covered by any limit?

In slots I know there’s usually a max win cap. But in sports betting, once the bet is accepted, they have to pay it out. The only “limit” they can impose is on how much they allow you to stake before the bet is placed. But once it’s on the ticket, they shouldn’t be capping your winnings anymore.

That user will not be able to place that specific bet if the casino doesn’t cover that limit.

Try to place a bet and an exaggerated amount or combined a parlay with huge odds then apply huge bet amount. You will notice a warning for betting limits which applies the casino bankroll limitation on players bet.

- Some let you bet, but when the ticket comes out, you see that the limit is 100k or 500k despite the odds being way higher
- Some don't say a word, but if you win 1.2 million with a dollar, suddenly there is a row in the T&S that there is a limit 100 lower than that they would honor

I’m not aware that casino includes a maximum win limit on regular. I only saw these limits on bonus ToS. But it’s shady as hell knowing this becomes they can insert this term whenever they want unnoticed unless player have previous copy of ToS.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

Do you think casinos should be able to cap max wins based on their bankroll size?

what is the connection on that? we should always base on the amount we bet on that game and not the bankroll. I like the way winning we have now in different casinos.
And that is really good and balance. It is always on the amount we bet on the time we hit maxwin!

[stompix]

- Some let you bet, but when the ticket comes out, you see that the limit is 100k or 500k despite the odds being way higher
- Some don't say a word, but if you win 1.2 million with a dollar, suddenly there is a row in the T&S that there is a limit 100 lower than that they would honor

I’m not aware that casino includes a maximum win limit on regular. I only saw these limits on bonus ToS. But it’s shady as hell knowing this becomes they can insert this term whenever they want unnoticed unless player have previous copy of ToS.

If we talk casinos, so no sports , just slots, blackjack, dice and roulette, they don't really need a cap on max win.
They have a cap on the wagering, so even if you would bet, let's say 1k on roulette, there is no way you could make more than 35k, wth slots the limit is already capped in the game, there is no room for the player to ago preset limits.
The problem is with sports, and if the initial parlays are not enough of a problem, in horse racing, you can go for SP odds, starting price, so you might bet 1k thinking it's a 2x odds and it might turn into a 4x easily.

[Localhostspeed]

Do you think casinos should be able to cap max wins based on their bankroll size?

what is the connection on that? we should always base on the amount we bet on that game and not the bankroll. I like the way winning we have now in different casinos.
And that is really good and balance. It is always on the amount we bet on the time we hit maxwin!

I'm equally trying to understand the connection as well. I can make a deposit of $100 and the other gamblers can deposit $1000k and we both can gamble $50 wager size, does that mean because my bankroll is less I should have lesser potential winning, it doesn’t make any sense unless I don’t understand what bankroll is in the first place. As long as we are wagering the same amount of money, our max cap and potential winning should be the same.

If the casino want to find a way to reward gamblers based on their bankroll, maybe there should be a special promotion to favor them on that. I don’t even think it’s necessary because casino reward players based on the amount they wagered in total. There are some casinos that support players that are heavy gamblers they do give special bonus if your wager exceed a certain amount of money, that’s where I think all these kind of things should be considered.