Regulations in online Gambling sites

[Wexnident]

They should really put out said regulations even without the problem of quarantine. Well, at least, they should ask for proofs ( those that already have KYC anyway) like something of a monthly salary, monthly expenses OR just introduce a formula where they have to put out salaries and expenses, let the machine calculate, and let the user themselves follow whether such cap should be accepted or not, or casinos themselves could introduce caps using that.

The report suggests the implementation of controls for online (remote) gambling. According to the paper, limits on both stake and speed of play need to be introduced. Online slots should have limits of £1 and £5 per bet. On the other hand, according to the report, non-slot content should receive limits on game design. This is because if non-slot content receives bet limits, it may become: “commercially non-viable.“

True, if they limited something like poker with 1 or 5 per bet? The hell would that make the game be. They could potentially lower the limit of raises and the like, to an acceptable range anyway. Or once the pot reaches a certain amount, game automatically picks up pace to get the river without asking players for more berts.

But 100£ cap is too low.

Well, it is supposed to limit them from spending too much. Using something like what I said, calculating salaries and expenses makes calculating a bit too different since some have almost no income, while some has a bit of income and the like, so I guess they just met at the middle and made a compromise.

[1715054332]

1715054332

[1715054332]

1715054332

[1715054332]

1715054332

[1715054332]

1715054332

[Janation]

Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC?

If that is the case I guess there would be a problem to some crypto gamblers since I know the majority of the gamblers using cryptocurrencies wants themselves to be anonymous or just doesn't want to send their information.  I am fine with the cap or the requirement to provve but this is different.

[sunsilk]

 £100 as a monthly cap is really a low limit for those gamblers that are even reaching more than this cap per month. There are good purposes and reasons why they are looking into making this happen.

But for now, let's wait for the future updates.

At the moment this is just a proposal, who knows what will happen.

[Coin_trader]

Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC?

I don’t see that KYC will be mandatory. Casino that have a license was already regulated which don’t required KYC. Only the amount of bet in Slot was being discussed to be regulated to control addiction of the player, This will be beneficial to the players because they can play without worrying about big loss. Actually this not a big deal because if ever the player reach the 100$ cap per month then they can just play other gambling games like dice, sportsbet and card games.

[Darker45]

100£ monthly deposit is just a soft cap. By giving that amount a label, there must be a higher cap probably depending on certain conditions. Furthermore, 100£ is low but gambling expenses should be low. It shouldn't be allocated with a budget that may get near the amount spent for necessities.

Also, it may actually accumulate because that monthly deposit limit probably discounts the fact that within a month that amount could actually double, triple, or even more.

While I am not a fan of rules, it is my general observation that people are better subjected to them rather than left absolutely free on their own. Yeah, people are no bots; they have awareness. But the thing is they are also very prone to spiral out of control.

[shoreno]

Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC?

I don’t see that KYC will be mandatory. Casino that have a license was already regulated which don’t required KYC. Only the amount of bet in Slot was being discussed to be regulated to control addiction of the player, This will be beneficial to the players because they can play without worrying about big loss. Actually this not a big deal because if ever the player reach the 100$ cap per month then they can just play other gambling games like dice, sportsbet and card games.

unlicensed casinos are less strict than those who have a license and they are mainly that dont require a kyc upon my observation .

only slot bets are being restricted ?  hmm naybe people get addicted on slots more than any other games and we can see how the number of slots grow  but it shouldnt be slots only because every other games there are those players that bet huge enough .

[maydna]

Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC?

I don’t see that KYC will be mandatory. Casino that have a license was already regulated which don’t required KYC. Only the amount of bet in Slot was being discussed to be regulated to control addiction of the player, This will be beneficial to the players because they can play without worrying about big loss. Actually this not a big deal because if ever the player reach the 100$ cap per month then they can just play other gambling games like dice, sportsbet and card games.

I think the KYC can be applied in the casino based on fiat, but in the casino based on crypto, that won't be easy because it needs regulation from the government, and many countries still not accept crypto. Perhaps, slots can attract many gamblers to spend much money in the games because to gamble on that game will no need to use big money in one bet. But I think all gambling games should be regulated because if only one gambling game regulated, people can still use the other gambling games to gamble, and there is a chance to see another addiction from other people. I think $100 per month will be too big to gamble for one person, but that can happen to the addiction gamblers because he can use more money to gamble, so he thinks that he can have more chances to win.

[lebregone]

Regulations are not bad especially if it cannot damage the profit of the casinos owner while protecting the people to become addicted in gambling.

But putting a mandatory limit which is very low is not a good sign also as the casinos owner will be in disadvantage, if it will continue then the casinos will likely to close and stop operating.
As a gambler, I am not against about the regulations as it can also prevent the fake casinos to operate and only the genuine one will be left.

[Debonaire217]

Regulations are not bad especially if it cannot damage the profit of the casinos owner while protecting the people to become addicted in gambling.

But putting a mandatory limit which is very low is not a good sign also as the casinos owner will be in disadvantage, if it will continue then the casinos will likely to close and stop operating.
As a gambler, I am not against about the regulations as it can also prevent the fake casinos to operate and only the genuine one will be left.

Perhaps, it is not just in the side of the house or casino that will not be in favor since most of the gambler spend lots of time in gambling especially if they don't have anything to do as they just want to have fun.

Mandatory limits should be increase especially depending on the deposit amount of the gambler, and not on how many game he/she could play. Why? a gambler could deposit high and play small amount of game because of his high betting amount, he could also play lots of game if he will reduce his bet amount. What makes it bad is when the gambler is depositing too much to the platform. So it is a good advise to limit deposit in order to discipline the gambler to bet not too much.

[Insanerman]

But 100£ cap is too low.

For me this is a much better regulation idea. Why? It is simply because it would limit the gambling activities you can do per month and as well as limit how much you can spend on gambling in a month. The fact that most gamblers are often get addicted onto it and spend almost half to even every money or belongings they have (some sells those so they can have money to gamble), it is a better way to eradicate such instances, not for the government, but for the gamblers as well.

[Natalim]

But 100£ cap is too low.

For me this is a much better regulation idea. Why? It is simply because it would limit the gambling activities you can do per month and as well as limit how much you can spend on gambling in a month. The fact that most gamblers are often get addicted onto it and spend almost half to even every money or belongings they have (some sells those so they can have money to gamble), it is a better way to eradicate such instances, not for the government, but for the gamblers as well.

You probably referring to the irresponsible gamblers, how about the professional gamblers, their main job is gambling, they can't live with that limitation.
The thing is, the government sees gambling as a business for the operators and just an entertainment to gamblers, they don't consider those people who are serious with their gambling activities.

[Becky666]

Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC? <snip>

The government had long ago agitated for all online gambling casinos to embark on compulsory know your customers(KYC) but some gambling platforms still decline this request and contributed to what has eaten deep into gamblers these days. As per the current regulations from the government, is to ensure gamblers are gambling minimally. Government can enforce this regulations through a minimal deposit from every gambler and not otherwise.

[carriebee]

Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC? <snip>

The government had long ago agitated for all online gambling casinos to embark on compulsory know your customers(KYC) but some gambling platforms still decline this request and contributed to what has eaten deep into gamblers these days. As per the current regulations from the government, is to ensure gamblers are gambling minimally. Government can enforce this regulations through a minimal deposit from every gambler and not otherwise.

This has been impose actually by the government to do kyc but as been said others o even users don't want to comply to provide personal identification. Actually, gambling laws and regulations continue to evolve these days. With the amount to limit even, it's low still good to avoid overspending by gamblers and to avoid addictions. So everyone can monitor how much they can only spend monthly.

[Lakai01]

It could also mean more business for Bitcoin casinos. Unfortunately, it will also open ways for unknowing UK gamblers to get scammed.

Exactly. This will only lead to the fact that no online casino will apply for a license in the UK. The majority of casinos are already operating on smaller islands with very lax laws around gambling.

So I don't really understand the point of the proposal, and in my opinion the "protection" of customers is just as little given as it is now. People who want to avoid the 100 pound limit can do so very easily.

[plvbob0070]

£100 as a monthly cap is really a low limit for those gamblers that are even reaching more than this cap per month. There are good purposes and reasons why they are looking into making this happen.

But for now, let's wait for the future updates.

At the moment this is just a proposal, who knows what will happen.

I guess it may vary from the amount of income you have, and how financially capable a gambler is. Maybe this £100 is for those who barely have a stable income or something since I think they are just trying to prevent gambling addiction. But if a gambler is rich enough to afford more than £100, then they can probably have a bigger monthly cap.

They have a good intention about this but for sure, we will see some gamblers and operators who will disagree with this proposal.

[FlightyPouch]

Actually this not a big deal because if ever the player reach the 100$ cap per month then they can just play other gambling games like dice, sportsbet and card games.

Makes sense. Most of the gamblers here doesn't just stick with dice or slots, they have a huge array of games they can play making $100 cap per month not that much. But not most of us can afford to lose that so I guess this might be nothing to some but to some, it is something.

[Botnake]

This seems to be a very rare regulation, I have not heard similar to this regulation before.
Come on, 100£ monthly limit seems not fair for gamblers, why are the government now controlling gamblers when it comes to spending money?

Honestly, I believe if they really care for the people, why not just think of banning gambling than making this kind of very complicated regulation just to give gamblers a chance to gamble at a very low amount. These regulators do not understand the gambling's principle which is "only bet what you can afford to lose", it doesn't state their a specific amount as everyone has different status financially.

Personally, I would disagree with his law.

[yazher]

Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC?

If that is the case I guess there would be a problem to some crypto gamblers since I know the majority of the gamblers using cryptocurrencies wants themselves to be anonymous or just doesn't want to send their information.  I am fine with the cap or the requirement to provve but this is different.

If we are talking about the KYC method regulations on gambling, we will have different views by the people all around the internet but we will find the majority will be against this implementation because no one wants to show their true identity just to play gambling online. anyway, in this era of crypto gambling online, we don't see it'll gonna implemented soon since a lot of people will be against it. but we cannot say after they finalized their decision, if that happened, then I guess the market in the online gambling will be greatly subsided.

[AicecreaME]

This changes might be boring to some people who don't have any problem regarding about financial status, that can gamble how much they want every single day. I know that gambling sites and government are just trying to limit or prevent everyone's from getting too deep in the abyss of gambling. However, this might backfire to them, they might get bankrupt in worst case scenario because many of their players might lose interest in this changes that are being implemented by both parties (Gambling sites and Government).

In my opinion, the result of this new policies may give other countries ideas on how much money they will put as a limit every single day and depends on a person's financial status background.

[Sadlife]

I dont understand why governments want to regulate casino's and gambling site by limiting betting especially when the economy is in critical situation due to businesses closing. In fact i dont understand, why governments still insist on this law when they are trying to revitalized the economy. This is a good move to help people but it's also bad in macroeconomics.