stake.com- Does not have gambling responsibility

[OgNasty]

I think this is the second time I've seen a thread with this theme directly at Stake.  It's a little strange to me.  The entire line of thinking behind it.  Granted I am not one who claims to be addicted to anything, so maybe I can't comprehend the lack of personal responsibility.  However, it's amazing how people can deny any personal responsibility and even demand that they be compensated because other people allowed them to do what they wanted.  The way I think it a little bit the opposite of that.  I would have been angry if they refused to let you use their service going forward because at one point in time in the past you clicked a button to self exclude. 

[1714851816]

1714851816

[1714851816]

1714851816

[1714851816]

1714851816

[1714851816]

1714851816

[1714851816]

1714851816

[1win]

Actually it is very often asked to block someone's account. But it is in the reality pointless because who will be able to prevent users to make another one? Or to make drop account and continue playing? No one. That is why it seems really pointless to blame someone in this case. Best regards, 1win team.

[Jawhead999]

Instead of self exclusion, you'd better looking for professional to recover your gambling addiction. It's your 100% responsibility to use the website or not, if you don't want to use the website why does you try to deposit and gamble again? Then you blamed them and want return of your last 2 deposit? It's really doesn't make sense.

I believe if you've got excluded by Stake for forever, you'll still use other casino due to your addiction.

[craym1890]

Instead of self exclusion, you'd better looking for professional to recover your gambling addiction. It's your 100% responsibility to use the website or not, if you don't want to use the website why does you try to deposit and gamble again? Then you blamed them and want return of your last 2 deposit? It's really doesn't make sense.

I believe if you've got excluded by Stake for forever, you'll still use other casino due to your addiction.

Maybe, but why the fuck do sites even have that "Responsible Gaming" policy (and requisite emblem at the bottom) if they aren't going to do anything about it? This is 100% on Stake. It doesn't matter whether the guy would have gone elsewhere and lost his funds. The instant he selected to self exclude, that specific account should have been cut off. No ifs, ands or buts.

They say they care about Responsible Gaming because it makes them look good on the surface. But they don't care one bit.

[Tellek Garing]

Instead of self exclusion, you'd better looking for professional to recover your gambling addiction. It's your 100% responsibility to use the website or not, if you don't want to use the website why does you try to deposit and gamble again? Then you blamed them and want return of your last 2 deposit? It's really doesn't make sense.

I believe if you've got excluded by Stake for forever, you'll still use other casino due to your addiction.

Maybe, but why the fuck do sites even have that "Responsible Gaming" policy (and requisite emblem at the bottom) if they aren't going to do anything about it? This is 100% on Stake. It doesn't matter whether the guy would have gone elsewhere and lost his funds. The instant he selected to self exclude, that specific account should have been cut off. No ifs, ands or buts.

They say they care about Responsible Gaming because it makes them look good on the surface. But they don't care one bit.

I rather practice personal gambling discipline instead of using site self exclusion features because many newbie gamblers do not know what the site self-exclusion feature entails, it is better to withdraw your money from the site before you self exclude from the site because you will not be able to withdraw after self-exclusion

[AicecreaME]

Actually it is very often asked to block someone's account. But it is in the reality pointless because who will be able to prevent users to make another one? Or to make drop account and continue playing? No one. That is why it seems really pointless to blame someone in this case. Best regards, 1win team.

OP is a irresponsible gambler or even a person asking for some sympathy because of his own mistake. The only person to be blame here is OP himself, because he can't control himself, even if he wasn't banned, if he don't want to deposit some money, he won't do it, but he does, because that's what he truly desired. Gambling addiction is a very tough opponent, you'll never get over with it unless you accepted that you need to be treated right away and you have gambling addiction.

To be able to solve a problem, you must admit that there's one.

[qwertyup23]

Instead of self exclusion, you'd better looking for professional to recover your gambling addiction. It's your 100% responsibility to use the website or not, if you don't want to use the website why does you try to deposit and gamble again? Then you blamed them and want return of your last 2 deposit? It's really doesn't make sense.

I believe if you've got excluded by Stake for forever, you'll still use other casino due to your addiction.

I am a firm believer that prevention is definitely better than cure. If one acknowledges that he/she is suffering from any kind of addiction, it is recommended to be highly proactive about it (e.g. preventing any possible return from the addiction).

Whenever someone is truly committed into resolving his/her gambling addiction, it is necessary that there are steps that must be made to prevent him from going back. If by permanently excluding yourself from a gambling website, this can definitely help someone from suffering addiction ever again.

[Shamm]

Actually it is very often asked to block someone's account. But it is in the reality pointless because who will be able to prevent users to make another one? Or to make drop account and continue playing? No one. That is why it seems really pointless to blame someone in this case. Best regards, 1win team.

OP is a irresponsible gambler or even a person asking for some sympathy because of his own mistake. The only person to be blame here is OP himself, because he can't control himself, even if he wasn't banned, if he don't want to deposit some money, he won't do it, but he does, because that's what he truly desired. Gambling addiction is a very tough opponent, you'll never get over with it unless you accepted that you need to be treated right away and you have gambling addiction.

To be able to solve a problem, you must admit that there's one.

Yes you are right that mate that addiction is not just easy to beat cause this is the toughest opponent of a person who played too much in gambling and we the gamblers if we are in the situation of them that addiction is with us I think it's hard to fight with it we need some help to others to leave or minimize for being addicted..

But in the Op case I think no one else to blame for but he him self is the only one to be blame.

[Kakmakr]

I really think you do not want to stop gambling, because you have tried this 2 years ago and you did it again. I think you knew what happened the last time and you want to exploit the loophole. (Not that I think that Stake will pay you anything)

Yes, their system might be flawed.. but you knew that right? I have seen several other people trying to do something similar and they failed. (One person even wanted money for the emails he/she is still receiving from Stake) 

[Wexnident]

Maybe, but why the fuck do sites even have that "Responsible Gaming" policy (and requisite emblem at the bottom) if they aren't going to do anything about it? This is 100% on Stake. It doesn't matter whether the guy would have gone elsewhere and lost his funds. The instant he selected to self exclude, that specific account should have been cut off. No ifs, ands or buts.

They say they care about Responsible Gaming because it makes them look good on the surface. But they don't care one bit.

Well, they do have the self-exclusion program, users just have to actually understand how it works you know? Most responsible programs and whatnot are prerequisites so most sites that have them have their own programs that let users have some method or way to stop themselves from gambling. It's not 100% on stake, it's 100% on the user instead.

Though tbf, I do agree with your statement. It's not that it's all (or it's stake specifically), but some gambling casinos only comply with the requirements but honestly don't give a damn about responsible gambling, after all, it does make them money.

[STT]

They might aid someone but they cannot solve the problem entirely.   All this measure does it make it slightly more difficult to be tempted to break your avoidance of a habit you wish to end.   Its a speedbump to slow down a problem, a serious reoccurring problem is not going to be helped as there are so many alternatives to gamble.  I used to gamble in card games during school breaks even, not for large amounts of money but almost anywhere you can go and gamble something so how can one site be held responsible in entirety.   They are obliged to aid self restrict and hopefully that promise to does continue and keeps improving as best they can but overall its a stopgap and a bigger final end is going to be required for any real problem.

[Ryker1]

^{They might aid someone but they cannot solve the problem entirely.}   All this measure does it make it slightly more difficult to be tempted to break your avoidance of a habit you wish to end.   Its a speedbump to slow down a problem, a serious reoccurring problem is not going to be helped as there are so many alternatives to gamble.  I used to gamble in card games during school breaks even, not for large amounts of money but almost anywhere you can go and gamble something so how can one site be held responsible in entirety.   They are obliged to aid self restrict and hopefully that promise to does continue and keeps improving as best they can but overall its a stopgap and a bigger final end is going to be required for any real problem.

Well they have to --because if they will keep having a service like this that cant aid the issues of their users, there could be a chance that most of them will transfer into other gambling casino which is turn into bankruptcy of their company. They should take good care of their users --not like this.
Because they generate profit through their users not on their own.
Recently, we have seen many reports of this casino which perhaps turn to others consciousness.

[24Kt]

^{They might aid someone but they cannot solve the problem entirely.}   All this measure does it make it slightly more difficult to be tempted to break your avoidance of a habit you wish to end.   Its a speedbump to slow down a problem, a serious reoccurring problem is not going to be helped as there are so many alternatives to gamble.  I used to gamble in card games during school breaks even, not for large amounts of money but almost anywhere you can go and gamble something so how can one site be held responsible in entirety.   They are obliged to aid self restrict and hopefully that promise to does continue and keeps improving as best they can but overall its a stopgap and a bigger final end is going to be required for any real problem.

Well they have to --because if they will keep having a service like this that cant aid the issues of their users, there could be a chance that most of them will transfer into other gambling casino which is turn into bankruptcy of their company. They should take good care of their users --not like this.
Because they generate profit through their users not on their own.
Recently, we have seen many reports of this casino which perhaps turn to others consciousness.

They have a lot of things goin on in this casino. I think, their team assigned to this overlooked this situation. But going to this casino, I have seen really high rollers betting huge amount of money. So they are still doing good in terms of business. They have their flaws but they already got their loyal patrons on this site. But for me, every casino has their own flaws. And this one for me is not detrimental to their business.

And I like what OgNasty said here -

I think this is the second time I've seen a thread with this theme directly at Stake.  It's a little strange to me.  The entire line of thinking behind it.  Granted I am not one who claims to be addicted to anything, so maybe I can't comprehend the lack of personal responsibility.  However, it's amazing how people can deny any personal responsibility and even demand that they be compensated because other people allowed them to do what they wanted.  The way I think it a little bit the opposite of that.  I would have been angry if they refused to let you use their service going forward because at one point in time in the past you clicked a button to self exclude. 

[Oilacris]

I really think you do not want to stop gambling, because you have tried this 2 years ago and you did it again. I think you knew what happened the last time and you want to exploit the loophole. (Not that I think that Stake will pay you anything)

Yes, their system might be flawed.. but you knew that right? I have seen several other people trying to do something similar and they failed. (One person even wanted money for the emails he/she is still receiving from Stake) 

Your own personal fault in the first place and you are trying out to sue out on the service that they hadnt do their job? For sure you would really still say negative things on the time that they wouldnt

let you play after you have self excluded which if you are really willing to quit gambling for good in the first place then you wouldnt really be having any complaints and wont do further actions

like depositing and playing again because you are the only ones who do fool yourself on believing that you could do it.

[Jawhead999]

Maybe, but why the fuck do sites even have that "Responsible Gaming" policy (and requisite emblem at the bottom) if they aren't going to do anything about it? This is 100% on Stake. It doesn't matter whether the guy would have gone elsewhere and lost his funds. The instant he selected to self exclude, that specific account should have been cut off. No ifs, ands or buts.

They say they care about Responsible Gaming because it makes them look good on the surface. But they don't care one bit.

Don't forget the self exclusion can be temporary and wouldn't always permanent, so it's possible Stake only gave a week temporary banned since the @OP said he's able to deposit and play after a week.

To self-exclude means to stop betting or gambling for a set time. Self-exclusion can be temporary or permanent.

However @OP is doesn't active anymore, the link he provided is error... I can't read the proof about this accusations. It would be better if Stake representative can explain about the self exclusion against this account.

[mak013]

It seems that the OP made a mistake by himself and trying to influence on stake creating this thread. The links don`t work, the OP posts only in this thread. I don`t see any tries to find a decision in the Stake.com thread. First of all these proves ought to be posted on the stake.com thread, to get an official answer. No one will search problem here, only official thread and support can help to solve it, if it is a true problem.

[saxydev]

What do you do with heroine addicts? You will say: stop taking heroine, it's only your responsability you take it or you go an help them?

You don't understand, it is their responsability even to track people that are addicted gamblers, to run source of income for those who gamble too much, the casino to be sure the users are playing with funds they can afford to use. This is legal requirment besides the moral grounds.

Stake doesn't have that, check the stake for UK player how it acts where they have a licence and they have to enforce it and check where they are not yet verified by no one. Even their licence from Curacao forces them to act. Think before you post, what stakes does is illegal, there is no comment or possible legal reply agaisnt it. Your opinion may be different, but it's your opinion, laws are laws.


READ THIS FIRST: https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/stake-casino-failure-to-close-account-and-follow-responsible-gambling-regulations

[coolcoinz]

READ THIS FIRST: https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/stake-casino-failure-to-close-account-and-follow-responsible-gambling-regulations

The link doesn't work for me. The site doesn't load at all.

As for their responsibility to act and stop addicts from being able to use the site per their own request, I agree that they should comply.
Looking for addicts and actively trying to determine who is who, if they use vpn or have new accounts and such looks like bullshit to me. Nobody is going to dedicate time and resources to that. If addicts wants to be smart with the casino and keep playing, they will find a way and no court will be able to prove that the casino knew who is who. If you put effort into hiding your identity, you are at fault here, not the service provider. It's like with online stores that ask you if you're 18. If you lie, it's on you.

[TwitchySeal]

READ THIS FIRST: https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/stake-casino-failure-to-close-account-and-follow-responsible-gambling-regulations

What I see here is askgamblers helping a problem gambler free roll a Casino that allows anonymous players to use VPNs.

Returning money to the player that self excluded is the worst option.  Problem gamblers justify their decision to gamble any way they can think of, and when they lose, they pass responsibility for their decisions to other people in any way they can think of.

Askgamblers basically just gave the degen motivation to try the whole thing again, as well as cash in hand and an easy way to convince himself it was the Casinos fault, not his.

I guarantee you there are multiple players that have freerolled Stake and other casinos multiple times from alt accounts by self excluding and continuing to play and then publicly pressuring them to give their money back.


My $1m idea:  The money should go to a charity chosen by the player at the time of self exclusion.  Any funds he is caught gambling with are donated.

[saxydev]

READ THIS FIRST: https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/stake-casino-failure-to-close-account-and-follow-responsible-gambling-regulations

What I see here is askgamblers helping a problem gambler free roll a Casino that allows anonymous players to use VPNs.

Returning money to the player that self excluded is the worst option.  Problem gamblers justify their decision to gamble any way they can think of, and when they lose, they pass responsibility for their decisions to other people in any way they can think of.

Askgamblers basically just gave the degen motivation to try the whole thing again, as well as cash in hand and an easy way to convince himself it was the Casinos fault, not his.

I guarantee you there are multiple players that have freerolled Stake and other casinos multiple times from alt accounts by self excluding and continuing to play and then publicly pressuring them to give their money back.


My $1m idea:  The money should go to a charity chosen by the player at the time of self exclusion.  Any funds he is caught gambling with are donated.

But do you know that all the casino's in the world do this for many years? This is why every casino have easy options to find the self-exclusion and allow users to come back after an interview if the self-exclusion is not over, as legal requirment. Stake avoids it because they are just saying: "meh", which is illegal.