Gambling ombudsman - do you feel protected?

[madnessteat]

3- What happens if the casino claims something else and the player says something else because obviously data can be faked by the casino
4- A large number of fake complaints will pile up and take ages to solve them

This is indeed tricky and I do not know the one that exists but even if we have one, the authorities should have a means for them to operate that is fair to both parties, yes the case will pile up but they must have a means to check the allegations they are mandated to solve the case in a time that is satisfactory to both parties.

I love to see one so we'll know if it will suceed.

The thing is that in such a dispute the protection of the player by the authorities is practically not feasible, since if the state authorities are able to track transactions in the blockchain thanks to analytical blockchain services, all operations performed at the level of online casinos are not public and, therefore, can be changed at any time and it is impossible to prove it.

[KTChampions]

More regulation means more guarantees for players.
Of course, direct communication with the ombusman in a particular jurisdiction will increase the guarantees and reduce the doubts of the end user. At least it will look like this.

But you must not forget that the Ombudsman receives a salary like all other structures attached to him. The casino will clearly not pay for these regulations out of pocket, so all costs will go to the gamblers. Therefore, there is an insoluble problem - even an ideal regulation (if it can exist at all and not contradict the interests of the gambler) has drawbacks since it costs money and the gambler pays for it.

[Smartprofit]

As users of gambling sites, we have to be careful and do our own research before committing our funds to a site. But no matter how much you dig around there is always a chance of being scammed or at least not being treated right by a service. I just read this article below on the need to have some short of protection or even a self regulation. Would you say that you would play more confidently if you knew that you can potentially have a claim if you think something is not right with the system or the decisions? How would that protection look like for you?

https://sbcnews.co.uk/europe/uk/2021/07/23/richard-hayler-ibas-the-ombudsman-from-abstract-concept-to-a-workable-reality/

I don't like this approach.  I assume that adults play gambling.  

Adults are able to adequately assess risks.  Adults are able to make informed decisions on their own.  If there is a fact of fraud, then it is necessary to report to the police.  

A gambling Ombudsman is not required.  There is also no need to force online casinos towards self-regulatory organizations.  

Such measures will lead to additional costs for online casinos.  These costs will be compensated by the players themselves.  Playing in online casinos will become less comfortable.  

This is bad.

[AicecreaME]

3- What happens if the casino claims something else and the player says something else because obviously data can be faked by the casino
4- A large number of fake complaints will pile up and take ages to solve them

This is indeed tricky and I do not know the one that exists but even if we have one, the authorities should have a means for them to operate that is fair to both parties, yes the case will pile up but they must have a means to check the allegations they are mandated to solve the case in a time that is satisfactory to both parties.

I love to see one so we'll know if it will suceed.

The thing is that in such a dispute the protection of the player by the authorities is practically not feasible, since if the state authorities are able to track transactions in the blockchain thanks to analytical blockchain services, all operations performed at the level of online casinos are not public and, therefore, can be changed at any time and it is impossible to prove it.

Absolutely correct.

That's why cryptocurrency is decentralized and the Government still can't regulates it because it's too hard for them to do so. So having an ombudsman in an online gambling for example is basically useless unless he can track those transactions and accurately judge who's transaction is this, something like that, if not, then what's the point. If you're a gambler, you should always take the full responsibility on your funds and how you play gambling to avoid consequences in the long run.

[fiulpro]

I think this question is two folds, for people who are not doing anything wrong and are playing in the bounds of the rules and regulations then they have nothing to be afraid of and I do think those people might have no probelms with it.
But when we are talking about the people who generally take privacy a lot more serious then for then this might be a really big problem and also there are people who try and do whatever they can to earn money which generally does not always involve being in rules and regulations so for them this question is atrocious.
For me, I personally don't mind as long as privacy is not compromised.

[l3pox]

More regulation means more guarantees for players.
Of course, direct communication with the ombusman in a particular jurisdiction will increase the guarantees and reduce the doubts of the end user. At least it will look like this.

yes, the thing is that its hard to regulate everything and sometimes making things more closed opens possibilities like incentives for bribing fiscals, etc...

anyways for gambling websites its usually better that they play it right and earn more on the long run than try to fool costumers

[Silberman]

Of course, who would not want protection, we want to lose fair and do not want to have a feeling that we've been cheated, it's better that we have a third-party mediator that will look at our case on who is right, people will play confidently and will wager more if they have a peace of mind playing, knowing that they are going to lose and win in a fair way, we are up to the mercy of the gambling site if they have a case against us.

And besides, the gambling site will have the seal of approval from the third party, that they are compliant.

It is better to know that there is a third party mediator that would going to foresee if there is a complaints in a one side party especially on a gamblers or players because sometimes the complaints of the gambler were being invalidated without a proper investigation on the said incidents. I think it could also give some sort of comfort for the player to gamble with a thought of a secureness when there's an unexpected foul play going around on the gambling site or gambling establishments. The more at peace the gambler or player the more a gambling site or gambling establishments could build a good reputation and more regulations means there are more guarantees for players.

While it is obvious that more regulation is probably going to give more security to the gamblers one of the reasons that I am part of this market has to do with the fact that a great deal of the people in it believe in reducing the intervention of the government as much as possible, and while regulations sometimes are necessary at the same time I do not think that people should rely on them and instead should rely on themselves, and if they happen to see something wrong with the casino then they should stop playing there.

[Sanugarid]

Of course I would definitely be more comfortable playing knowing that I can contest my losses when I know and feel that there's some cheating behind the game although I feel that it's all just a dream because I am sure that contesting in real life is going to take a long time because there's investigations and some casinos might even do some intimidation or bribery to stop or collude the investigation.

[maju69]

In fact, since entering gambling, I have often experienced problems with deposits and poor services by the operator. But so far for crypto gambling it's not that bad when it comes to casinos that provide fiat deposits. Since the Ombudsman may be more effectively used as an intermediary to report such acts, can gambling using fiat also be explicitly reprimanded by the Ombudsman?