You have to prove that you can take the loss

[Sadlife]

Its easier said than done, most gamblers bets money that they can't afford to loss especially when most people are unemployed and doesn't have any source of income, so they turn into casino's to make money.
The governments decision towards gambling addiction may also affect its economy especially when there's a lot of revenue in online gambling during the pandemic.

[1714996978]

1714996978

[1714996978]

1714996978

[1714996978]

1714996978

[1714996978]

1714996978

[Mauser]

Therefore even if you loose 100 Euro , you might have to get ready to prove that , the loss was indeed flexible and you can take it . Unfortunately now the Government is looking forward to regulate the online Gambling since , the revenues from the offline casinos have taken a strong loss , online Gambling is now being preferred since it's safer and much needed during the pandemic.

This regulation might be problematic for some  , for sure now the crypto gambling sites will receive a notice and let's see what would be the height of regulation.

Making sure that gamblers have the financial means to take a decent loss in gambling seems quite reasonable from the casinos. Something similar is done with investing in derivatives where you might have to take losses in the multiple of the money invested. You have to fill out a questionaire when opening your broker account. It definitely makes you think more about potential losses.
But more important than financial coverage is the emotional one. I think it's good to try to fight against gambling addiction very early on. It's very sad to read the stories where people bet their home away just because they coudln't stop.

[MCobian]

I think the UK government is trying to regulate online gambling for tax revenue, after a few months offline casinos closed
and the government is losing income. Regarding prevent addicted, the only reason is the UK government to regulate online
gambling.Because it is very difficult to prove people can take the loss, and if it is implemented, it will probably fail in my opinion.
Let's wait and see the wishes of the UK government whether it can run well or not.

[mezzaluna]

This regulation might be problematic for some  , for sure now the crypto gambling sites will receive a notice and let's see what would be the height of regulation.

I guess messing around Crypto Gambling websites already comes with a cost since you are gonna play with your money on it. It would really gain some popularity since people are bored and wanted to kill some time. Crypto websites will always come with the risk of losing money and I guess some people are always ready for that UNLESS they are inconsiderate of the fact that they can lose.

[aioc]

According to the source stated , the online Gamblers needs to prove that they can handle the losses . This decision was taken into account after the government had a lot of news regarding the gambling addiction and problem that was arising especially during the pandemic.

It's a proposal by Social Market Foundation therefore still not implemented.

Other than that , one needs to actually follow some rules if this gets cleared:


Therefore even if you loose 100 Euro , you might have to get ready to prove that , the loss was indeed flexible and you can take it . Unfortunately now the Government is looking forward to regulate the online Gambling since , the revenues from the offline casinos have taken a strong loss , online Gambling is now being preferred since it's safer and much needed during the pandemic.

If you've lost a higher amount than 100 EURO you already passed the test, I don;t know how they come out with that amount and will they employ psychologist to prove if you can handle losses, although it's a good move but I don;t think it can and it will be implemented in other countries the regulators will have a body set up for this and they will also spend money too.

[iv4n]

snip

If you've lost a higher amount than 100 EURO you already passed the test, I don;t know how they come out with that amount and will they employ psychologist to prove if you can handle losses, although it's a good move but I don;t think it can and it will be implemented in other countries the regulators will have a body set up for this and they will also spend money too.

Hehe, you got it wrong, at least I think you got it wrong. It's about you proving that you have money and that you can afford to lose 100 euros. Like you have big salary, or saving, like you have for your family needs, for ex-wife alimony, for kids, bills, and that kind of stuff. And in some case if you owe to bank, or to anyone else, how can you afford to gamble with 100 euros?
This is probably one of the reasons why people will choose crypto gambling!

[peter0425]

According to the source stated , the online Gamblers needs to prove that they can handle the losses . This decision was taken into account after the government had a lot of news regarding the gambling addiction and problem that was arising especially during the pandemic.

It's a proposal by Social Market Foundation therefore still not implemented.

Other than that , one needs to actually follow some rules if this gets cleared:


Therefore even if you loose 100 Euro , you might have to get ready to prove that , the loss was indeed flexible and you can take it . Unfortunately now the Government is looking forward to regulate the online Gambling since , the revenues from the offline casinos have taken a strong loss , online Gambling is now being preferred since it's safer and much needed during the pandemic.

If you've lost a higher amount than 100 EURO you already passed the test, I don;t know how they come out with that amount and will they employ psychologist to prove if you can handle losses, although it's a good move but I don;t think it can and it will be implemented in other countries the regulators will have a body set up for this and they will also spend money too.

This proposal indeed needs  allocated budget.

If the government will proceed and take this into the account they need to hire professional
to take care of those people / gamblers who already have too much addiction.
in the brighter side, it will help those gamblers who already getting deep from this activities.

[target]

How else should you prove you can take the loss of  £100 each month except by providing KYC data?

A "cap" does mean that you are only to lose such amount and nothing more.  Martingale isn't going to work with this kind of policy. 
 This proposal will only give these casinos and the government the list of individuals that may be able to join some club that they can exclude the small-time gamblers who just take their luck from time to time.

[Quidat]

How else should you prove you can take the loss of  £100 each month except by providing KYC data?

A "cap" does mean that you are only to lose such amount and nothing more.  Martingale isn't going to work with this kind of policy. 
 This proposal will only give these casinos and the government the list of individuals that may be able to join some club that they can exclude the small-time gamblers who just take their luck from time to time.

Most likely for it to happen on which there would be gamblers that will not really abide nor approve this kind of law or regulation yet said limitation was just too small.
And here comes with those VIP clubs  and of course that would be requiring some under the table fees for such exclusion- its nothing something new for these situation because
for those people who does have lots of money will really find a way to play more.When it comes on making such regulation then it would really have pros and cons.

[FlightyPouch]

That does not really matter at all, no one in this world has some mentality to take the loss unless that someone is fully loaded with money. every loss is hurting us in any way, the only problem here is how a person handle that loss. The countries that still implementing ban on gambling, has already known the negative impact of gambling on their people. one might commit suicide if they lose a big amount of money. Like what happened with this one: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40128776

This literally says he can't take a loss at all but not all of us would be taking this way of losing. Not all of us are quite desperate to win in gambling nor look at it to even win money. We have fun with ot that is the reason we stick with it, I guess earning money is just the bonus of it.

I also talked about my friends about this like a way for gamblers to check whether they can afford to gamble in a casino or even take a loss and I think a cap is really what it needs.

[CarnagexD]

Since online gambling is preferable during the pandemic the government most likely had put their eye on it because there's no way they can get taxes on land-based casinos.

Definitely they are eyeing for any direction on how to get a tax since most of people these days are not on their job to be productive and pay for taxes especially in countries that have been experiencing a high unemployment rate like America. And talking about gambling, gambling is one of the highest tax income for the government, houses that pays for millions of dollars each year to operate is the heart of many city's economy.
It really makes sense if they start to work with online gambling regulation.

I'm wondering why the government only had this kind of thought now that online gambling is gaining more demand. They might actually start focusing on regulating online gambling  instead of land-based casinos since they will be getting more taxes on it.

On the other hand, this might both help and put a burden on gamblers since they will have to provide proof that they can afford playing on casinos further if they will exceed £100 losses.

I think there will be more of online services taxation that would happen in the future since most of us rely on the online, especially when it comes to our transactions every thing under the law must be taxed for the government and its sector to operate. Not only talking about the online gambling, but also the other services that we use online like netflix and youtube.

[imstillthebest]

How else should you prove you can take the loss of  £100 each month except by providing KYC data?

the amount is high enough for me and i dont think i can be qualified for this rule . im afraid i cant gamble again if these regulations will be implemented .

A "cap" does mean that you are only to lose such amount and nothing more.  Martingale isn't going to work with this kind of policy. 

you can still play martingale but you only need to decrease your starting bet size according to their limits  .
 

This proposal will only give these casinos and the government the list of individuals that may be able to join some club that they can exclude the small-time gamblers who just take their luck from time to time.

that will be thier loss if they do that  .  before when no regulations are implemented , no casinos do that because small time gamblers are still gamblers and its part of the casinos responsibility when they loose or when those gamblers win .

[Questat]

This must have a big impact to the profitability of the casinos, especially the regulated ones where gamblers needs to perform the KYC before they can gamble. However, in crypto space where gambling is anonymous, I think there will be no effect, and besides how can we prove to them if they don't know us since they are offering an anonymous gambling platform.

Me, I should not worry as I am a crypto casino gamblers for years already.

When we reach certain limits in crypto casinos sometimes they may require KYC in order to let you withdraw the big amount of money you have won.Some of them do not let you withdraw 10.000 Usd in Bitcoin without verification.However this is just between you and the site and the crypto sites most probably different from the Fiat ones do not pass your documents to the government as easily as Fiat casinos do.You,I and every crypto lover are safe for at least 5-7 years to come.

I think bettors that stake big amount of money are mostly betting on fiat casinos, but with this restriction by their government, I'm sure we will get more gamblers to adopt in crypto gambling. $10,000 is a huge money, I never gamble or won that in a crypto casino so I guess I'm safe with the KYC though. But if you look and compare crypto casinos between fiat in case that 100 EUR limit will be pass into law, fiat casino in that particular country might shift its operation in different country as there's no way they can maximize their profit when the government itself are limiting people to gamble.

[famososMuertos]

Hi!
First of all, this article is very exclusive and refers to the United Kingdom, that is, its scope is very regional, although not its impact. Another issue is that The Guardian is not, let's say, an expert website on the subject, in fact it focuses on the UK government effect issue, which is where The Guardian has good arguments, but this website is a "todero" of those web portals that They write all kinds of news, but it is certainly one of the best there is and very influential in the UK.
___
The losses of a player should never be measured by an as specific amount (100) , it is the biggest mistake there is and if you are going to legislate on gambling, that it should never be "100" of any currency.

A player's losses are technically measured by his banking (bankroll) ability.
So,let's go to the Topic  that concerns us in this forum, cryptocurrencies, someone can have a $ 1 to bet, the best thing that can happen to a person who likes to bet regardless of the result, is to get to a crypto casino, depending on the casino and of the currency that the casino uses a $ 1 can bring you as much entertainment as $ 100.

-1-There are bets not based on the minimum Fiat decimal that are 2 decimals, you can use up to 8. And depending on the value of the cryptocurrency, the effect of betting for $ 1 can be quite entertaining, therefore if you use $ 100 based on a decimal limit In some shitcoin, your entertainment may be longer than betting on the traditional currency. -one-

BTW, the article refers to traditional "Fiat" online casinos. Believe it or not, the bets in cryptos casinos are not so massive compared to traditional ones. ***

If the article did at least an educational technical analysis on the betting methodologies and told me the number 100 comes out here, I would understand that figure.

The ignorance in the evaluative subject from the qualitative point of view of the gamblers is very great only based on the quantitative point.

A number is not the solution, at least not in the background, it is something partial and merely symbolic.

The article also has its hypocrisy, since Uk is the paradise of many professional poker² players (at least in Europe, in many other countries the rules of online casinos are very rigid and require licenses to register even with a web domain extension) , because the issue of profits and restrictions is flexible.
__
I have known of players who manage monthly losses of up to $ 15,000 not because I read it, I have seen it and the ones that are read are six figures or higher are simply amazing.

In the earthly environment that I handle losses of $ 100 they are so trivial that they can be handled in a single bet, or in different times such as minutes, hours, weeks and months, it all depends on the player and their ability to bet, not on a number 100.

That figure is so disconcerting that they tell you how uninformed these people are.

Gambling disease is a serious chronic disease. A gambling pathologist cannot be cured simply because being told that he must "control his losses," is controlled by referring him to the doctor.

What should be mandatory and not an option is deposit control on any website. At least for periods of hours or minimum limits that can be established from $ 10 in pre-established periods before starting to play.

GB.
-1-: This comment refers to those who read us as an informative part, third parties who feel identified with this basic information. It is not directed to the OP or the participants in the topic who have a good command of that information.
(2) Online casino traditional Fiat. Not only high stakes or high income, I have known Spanish players who earned between 800 and 5000 euros per month, some as partial or total income for their livelihood and have moved to the UK due to the issue of taxes and the laws that regulate the flow of players due to the theme of only Spanish players, domain control (e.g.) .es.
P.D: 100 maybe FOTBs

[maydna]

How else should you prove you can take the loss of  £100 each month except by providing KYC data?

the amount is high enough for me and i dont think i can be qualified for this rule . im afraid i cant gamble again if these regulations will be implemented .

No need to worry. You can still gamble, even if there are regulations in your country because you will get another way to connect to the gambling site, but you need to be careful because the government eyes can watch your step.

The gamblers must handle their losses, and never blame other people because we use our own money to gamble, and we are not being forced by other people to use that money. But no matter if there is a regulation or not, we must control our money and make limitations, so we don't get any problem.

[buwaytress]

Trust me, this is going to add yet another vague clause to casinos' already murky Terms of Service, which already prevents professional gamblers, and asks casinos to help players enforce self-exclusion (tell me which crypto or online casino actually does its best to enforce this). Now players have to prove they're betting money they can afford to lose? I'd be watching all those trading sites first.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to ask people to do that but how can you prove it?

[Latviand]

Already in several countries gambling is regulated. Very few countries follow it in a strict manner, while majority just stay liberal and give importance when something serious as suicide happens. Regulations were a must, but those regulations need to keep both the users and the gambling platform owners on the safer side.

That's the problem when people got really mentally affected after a huge loss in gambling, you can't fully blame the casino because it is the person's will to have that losses.

Regulation is really required to maintain control and balance between the two variables.

When it comes to gambling, it can really have a huge impact to someone who are not that knowledgeable about the risks of gambling that's why they end up having a miserable life.

Online gambling to become regulated is really a good approach to help gamblers keep on track and control their emotion and have limits to prevent these suicides, mental problems, and addictions. I'm not really a fan of gambling because I'm an investor, although they both have risks, investments are much safer.

[Becky666]

Its easier said than done, most gamblers bets money that they can't afford to loss especially when most people are unemployed and doesn't have any source of income, so they turn into casino's to make money.

For those unemployed: Do they really make the money we're talking about here? I think in the real sense they don't, rather they lose the more. Hardly for anyone to come empty into the gambling hall and make it out with pleasure. Most of these gamblers go home even more frustrated than before.

The governments decision towards gambling addiction may also affect its economy especially when there's a lot of revenue in online gambling during the pandemic.

Even though the decision by the government will affect her economy, it's better for her citizens to be more safe than getting into gambling addiction.

[Pamadar]

I don't have to prove anything but I can take any losses that I'm aware of gambling with.

There are countries already that have regulated online gambling and some decided to ban and won't operate through it. I think the reason for others to prohibit it so the land-based casinos won't have any competition.

But if they allow so, they might be looking into crypto casinos too.

Casinos should be the one to regulate about gamblers losses but unfortunately, there is such a thing as privacy concern and protecting data of their customers, it's like a bank where they need to protect their clients because these casinos rely heavily on their high rollers and high rollers do not want to public what they spend in gambling.

With this kind of proposal, the casino needs to reveals that information once the government ask them.
Though I do agree that it should be the house that supposedly handled this case and start providing such treatments to avoid heavily addictions.

[Betwrong]

~

A £100-per-month “soft cap” on online losses.
Tax breaks for firms that move onshore.
Limits on how much can be staked online.
A regulatory shake-up, including a new ombudsman.
A kitemarking system for firms that uphold standards.
A clearer sanctions regime for those that don’t.

~

Regulations can be good, but online gambling shouldn't be overregulated, let alone prohibited. Not all countries have land based casinos, and those that have them, don't have them in all regions. Some people need to blow off a little steam once in a while, and online gambling sites are among perfect places for doing so. The thing is that the so-called "gambling addicts" would not turn into "normal citizens" overnight, if there were no gambling anymore. Rather, they would become drug addicts, alcoholics, dangerous criminals, you name it. When there is a limit on how much can be staked online, it's equivalent to "no gambling" for such people. I would think twice of where it could lead to.