You have to prove that you can take the loss

[finaleshot2016]

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.

But again it should be a confidential thing, the house, or even the government shouldn't get that information without the gambler's approval. We already know what's the effect and the cause of the addiction and it destroys the person's life. I agree that some want to hide their money spent on the gamblings and addictions shouldn't be the conclusion when someone is continuously losing because sometimes having fun is their only purpose and money isn't their problem.

[Natalim]

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.

If that is the case then gamblers will limit themselves or look for underground casinos so they can keep their credentials majority of high rollers do not want their financial status, casinos will protect their high rollers they rely heavily on their high rollers for-profit and they want to keep it that way.

That's probably what is expected for the gamblers, as in reality, gamblers will always find a way to gamble, and since they can't accept the regulation they will find a way to satisfy their gambling needs, and I think crypto casinos is the best answer to that.

[panganib999]

If such regulations will be implemented to control the gambling addiction, it would be a great help for those gamblers to know their limitations so that they could keep up that playing must be only limited under restrictions. But such rules won't make sense to prove that implementing it will consider gamblers that they could handle their losses because addiction and the way you handle your stressors when it comes to managing your bets and losses is on a psychological manner. The regulation would just make gamblers to control their expenses but still it cannot state that a gambler can prove that he can handle the losses he have taken on playing gambling.

Also, there might be cases that because there are certain rules about limitations, gamblers might broke into managing his emotions for he feels pressure on how he would budget his bets to avoid making up £100 loss to keep on playing gambling. The regulation can have both pros and cons depending on how the gamblers would take it. Therefore, the management and moderation would still rely on the gambler himself.

[cabalism13]

If such regulations will be implemented to control the gambling addiction, it would be a great help for those gamblers to know their limitations so that they could keep up that playing must be only limited under restrictions.

Expect the Black Market will make a Big Money out of these rules. Ofcourse addicted users will never try to obey the rules, they'll find a way to play over and over again. Besides these kind of rules only works at the start when it's been implemented,... trust me after years of counting, They'll be back to what they've used to.

[FlightyPouch]

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.

If that is the case then gamblers will limit themselves or look for underground casinos so they can keep their credentials majority of high rollers do not want their financial status, casinos will protect their high rollers they rely heavily on their high rollers for-profit and they want to keep it that way.

Based on the other thread it is said that those casinos which are regulated doesn't need to require KYCs for this. They will continue to do the same except for the new thing which is proving themselves within having a loss of $100 or maybe £100. I don't think it would be that big for them to gamble underground.

[Slow death]

I think that every person who is over 18 years old is responsible for everything he does in his own life. If someone is going to play in any casino, that person must be prepared in case they lose money, nobody goes to the casino just to have wins without losing.

I see many topics talking about gambling addiction, but they forget that many people spend a lot of money on beer, but nobody talks about closing the beer factories, why? because it's not the breweries that are to blame

[Rosilito]

-
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.

I agree, man. Well laid out. Their idea seemed a bit going overboard, in my opinion. Besides, it will always be the individual's responsbility whether on how much they can spend in such matter. Although, their concern is somehow good (plausible enough, atleast) however I don't think that it is applicable in this case  .

[Vaculin]

I think that every person who is over 18 years old is responsible for everything he does in his own life. If someone is going to play in any casino, that person must be prepared in case they lose money, nobody goes to the casino just to have wins without losing.

I see many topics talking about gambling addiction, but they forget that many people spend a lot of money on beer, but nobody talks about closing the beer factories, why? because it's not the breweries that are to blame

They might be looking at the risk level, if a person is addicted in gambling, he can lose all his money compared to a person addicted in beer where he can't consume everything he can afford to buy. Also, gambling addiction has a lot of side effects, you could be addicted to liquor or drugs, therefore I understand that government are making measures to minimize addiction, but this specific law I'm against with.

[VanityWallets2015]

While there certainly are some people dangerously addicted to gambling, I honestly think proving you can afford to lose more than £100 is a silly rule. I don't like it at all when the gov gets their hands inside my wallet and decides where each banknote should go.

Like, isn't it more logical to allow everyone to decide how much money to spend on casinos by themselves without having to "prove" anything and just let them go over the board if that's what they're willing to do? Putting a loss limit in place decreases casino revenues as well - and people will find ways to avoid the limit anyway, so it overall looks like a regulation that doesn't make sense to me..

Very well said. Gambling addiction is resulted from irresponsible playing. That is to say, everyone should know there own limits.
Some people are falling deep with gambling and will do anything just to be able to play again and again.
The movement of the government to stop the gambling addiction is good. However, putting regulations to casinos just to control the funds of people is no good.

[livingfree]

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.

But the casinos has to go through the local government so that they can operate.

So whichever the local govt will instruct them to do so, they'll just have to obey if they want to keep operating. About the high rollers, they certainly want to take care of them, vip treatment and don't want to go to another casino, online or local.

[South Park]

While there certainly are some people dangerously addicted to gambling, I honestly think proving you can afford to lose more than £100 is a silly rule. I don't like it at all when the gov gets their hands inside my wallet and decides where each banknote should go.

Like, isn't it more logical to allow everyone to decide how much money to spend on casinos by themselves without having to "prove" anything and just let them go over the board if that's what they're willing to do? Putting a loss limit in place decreases casino revenues as well - and people will find ways to avoid the limit anyway, so it overall looks like a regulation that doesn't make sense to me..

It is just one of those regulations that makes sense for the people that like to feel better with themselves after passing such law because they think they are doing something for the community, but we know the truth, those that are addicted to gambling are going to find a way around it and most likely cryptocurrencies are going to be part of this, it doesn't really make any sense to me that if you have earned the fiat in your bank account that somehow you are restricted in its use and yet people accept this all the time.

[20kevin20]

Gambling involves money and humans falls for it. People who do not have a good self discipline will end up becoming addicted to ill lose money first if they do not stop at certain level. People think this is sort of free and easy money to make it from gambling and this drives them to gamble and if they lose it then play to recover those lost money. Government in a way doing this to protect such people from it but in the ends, everyone gets covered under such policy.

Those who'll rush in for the bucks will not be stopped by a £100 gambling limit anyway. They'll seek other ways to get rich out of nothing and fall in the said trap instead, so it's going to have the same (or a possibly even worse) outcome. Some people spend a lot of money on alcohol - should we impose a spending limit per month? Doesn't make sense. We should take care of ourselves.

[Oilacris]

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.

But the casinos has to go through the local government so that they can operate.

So whichever the local govt will instruct them to do so, they'll just have to obey if they want to keep operating. About the high rollers, they certainly want to take care of them, vip treatment and don't want to go to another casino, online or local.

They would really need to abide or else they would face up violations and penalties if they would violate such laws or regulation.We do know on what they've been thinking about the risk
on where they do limit such amount in monthly basis but we know that it can easily be hit up even on a part time gambler.

For Vip's or huge spender then casinos will really find a way to retain those players because they do know that it will really be a huge loss of them on losing those players
yet we know on how casinos do make profit.

This new rule or law sucks big time on their part.

[livingfree]

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.

But the casinos has to go through the local government so that they can operate.

So whichever the local govt will instruct them to do so, they'll just have to obey if they want to keep operating. About the high rollers, they certainly want to take care of them, vip treatment and don't want to go to another casino, online or local.

They would really need to abide or else they would face up violations and penalties if they would violate such laws or regulation.We do know on what they've been thinking about the risk
on where they do limit such amount in monthly basis but we know that it can easily be hit up even on a part time gambler.

For Vip's or huge spender then casinos will really find a way to retain those players because they do know that it will really be a huge loss of them on losing those players
yet we know on how casinos do make profit.

This new rule or law sucks big time on their part.

They know how to treat those customers that they know which are heavy gamblers.

They just can't let go of those people because they are the bread and butter of that casino. It is a matter of compliance on their end while understanding on the side of the government as they are a business that has to be retained if they have a huge number of customers.

[ralle14]

Based on the other thread it is said that those casinos which are regulated doesn't need to require KYCs for this. They will continue to do the same except for the new thing which is proving themselves within having a loss of $100 or maybe £100. I don't think it would be that big for them to gamble underground.

I think they have to require KYC during the registration if the £100 monthly losses gets implemented because casinos can't just guess or assume which of their gamblers aren't capable of handling the losses. Anyway even if it's approved this won't be a problem to most of us crypto gamblers since it's only from the UK while most crypto casinos are regulated by Curacao.

[KTChampions]

I do not know how substantiated these ideas are (perhaps there is something useful in them), but I know one thing for sure - the more government control and regulation, the more expensive the final product is for the consumer. Thank God that for the foreseeable future, blockchain will allow gamblers from all over the world to live the way they want without having to ask their governments for permission.

[maydna]

Based on the other thread it is said that those casinos which are regulated doesn't need to require KYCs for this. They will continue to do the same except for the new thing which is proving themselves within having a loss of $100 or maybe £100. I don't think it would be that big for them to gamble underground.

I think they have to require KYC during the registration if the £100 monthly losses gets implemented because casinos can't just guess or assume which of their gamblers aren't capable of handling the losses. Anyway even if it's approved this won't be a problem to most of us crypto gamblers since it's only from the UK while most crypto casinos are regulated by Curacao.

If the regulations are implemented in the UK, I think the other countries will not get the effect, and the gamblers can still playing gambling, even they will get losses more than $100. I think the gamblers don't have to prove themselves of having a loss of $100 because I think for some gamblers, that will be an embarrassing thing for them because they told other people or government about their losses. I guess that crypto gambling will not be a problem because we can select the gambling website, which doesn't require KYC to play gambling.

[lebregone]

I wonder what kind of prove they are looking just to verify that a certain gamblers can handle their losses. Most of the governments will surely try
to regulate any casinos that are operating in their country not only because they are worried about the gambling addiction but
because they need the money that came from the casinos.

Casinos are in disadvantage if limits will be implemented as they will surely take a loss rather than gain and once it will happen then casinos will be forced
to close.

[Barnabe]

Based on the other thread it is said that those casinos which are regulated doesn't need to require KYCs for this. They will continue to do the same except for the new thing which is proving themselves within having a loss of $100 or maybe £100. I don't think it would be that big for them to gamble underground.

I think they have to require KYC during the registration if the £100 monthly losses gets implemented because casinos can't just guess or assume which of their gamblers aren't capable of handling the losses. Anyway even if it's approved this won't be a problem to most of us crypto gamblers since it's only from the UK while most crypto casinos are regulated by Curacao.

If the regulations are implemented in the UK, I think the other countries will not get the effect, and the gamblers can still playing gambling, even they will get losses more than $100. I think the gamblers don't have to prove themselves of having a loss of $100 because I think for some gamblers, that will be an embarrassing thing for them because they told other people or government about their losses. I guess that crypto gambling will not be a problem because we can select the gambling website, which doesn't require KYC to play gambling.

If the results are good in the UK you can bet they will implement it elsewhere. It's not that bad, especially when considering that if the gambler loses a lot the government will have to give them social benefits.

[FlightyPouch]

Based on the other thread it is said that those casinos which are regulated doesn't need to require KYCs for this. They will continue to do the same except for the new thing which is proving themselves within having a loss of $100 or maybe £100. I don't think it would be that big for them to gamble underground.

I think they have to require KYC during the registration if the £100 monthly losses gets implemented because casinos can't just guess or assume which of their gamblers aren't capable of handling the losses. Anyway even if it's approved this won't be a problem to most of us crypto gamblers since it's only from the UK while most crypto casinos are regulated by Curacao.

I agree. Online gambling here in our country, as far as I know is illegal since I heard that POGOs here only offer their services to online casinos which costumers are feom other countries. This wouldn't be a problem to most of us here. But, if it is, I guess for me that cap is too much.