stake.com- Does not have gambling responsibility

[saxydev]

Nope, it's only stake's fault. The moment the user have requested self exclusion from that second his gambling features should've stopped, there he had a moment of waking up to reality, but stake didn't care and allowed him to play.

Stake is reliable and directly responsable for any lost funds. And more even if he would've one, by Stake terms they could've seize his funds at any moment after because he requested the self exclusion. This is shady behaviour and illegal. Anyone defending stake is a just a shit poster who hope they will get a giveaway from stake or just post random things for 25 cents.

[1714847824]

1714847824

[1714847824]

1714847824

[1714847824]

1714847824

[1714847824]

1714847824

[Emitdama]

Nope, it's only stake's fault. The moment the user have requested self exclusion from that second his gambling features should've stopped, there he had a moment of waking up to reality, but stake didn't care and allowed him to play.

Stake is reliable and directly responsable for any lost funds. And more even if he would've one, by Stake terms they could've seize his funds at any moment after because he requested the self exclusion. This is shady behaviour and illegal. Anyone defending stake is a just a shit poster who hope they will get a giveaway from stake or just post random things for 25 cents.

Why stake only when the user did gamble upon receiving the unexpected notifications, that's why he continues to lose and is now asking for refunds because of this incident but stake is too generous to agree with this and offered him an amount. If they do this then maybe the act that they did is intentional but after this issue, they will not do it again.

If the guy won, I don't think we can see a thread like this but he will be silent unless the money was seized. It sounds not right but is there any gambling company that has a rule like that? but that can be helpful to totally prevent the person from coming back to the casino to play gambling again.

[tabas]

It looks like he’s trying to disconnect himself again with gambling and I do hope that he succeed by time or he might be very busy gambling again. OP has a big problem here, and this is beyond the control of STAKE. Gambler should be more responsible and never rely on any site to help you control with your addiction, this should be your top priority to remain not addict.

We all wish him to follow what he wants to do and if he wants to avoid gambling, just make his own initiative and ways of avoiding it. He has contacted stake about it but things should be in his control now and he's the one who should control everything pertaining to his gambling activities.

When the people get a loss.They will made disappointed towards the website and started to report it blindly. But they have to hold and cross verify whether it's really fake website or you loss by the less knowledge in it. If you find it faulty for verification. You had a full rights to escalate here. Stake.com had some users and their payments to participants was on time, So I had not believe the O.P statement fully.

Well, it's not the issue of being fake or legitimate. It's an obvious legitimate website and we all know what stake is. I guess this thread has gone too far and should be locked.

[CaVO32]

It looks like he’s trying to disconnect himself again with gambling and I do hope that he succeed by time or he might be very busy gambling again. OP has a big problem here, and this is beyond the control of STAKE. Gambler should be more responsible and never rely on any site to help you control with your addiction, this should be your top priority to remain not addict.

We all wish him to follow what he wants to do and if he wants to avoid gambling, just make his own initiative and ways of avoiding it. He has contacted stake about it but things should be in his control now and he's the one who should control everything pertaining to his gambling activities.

When the people get a loss.They will made disappointed towards the website and started to report it blindly. But they have to hold and cross verify whether it's really fake website or you loss by the less knowledge in it. If you find it faulty for verification. You had a full rights to escalate here. Stake.com had some users and their payments to participants was on time, So I had not believe the O.P statement fully.

Well, it's not the issue of being fake or legitimate. It's an obvious legitimate website and we all know what stake is. I guess this thread has gone too far and should be locked.

That is right, at the end of the day, it is you that will take care of your business. Not the site or person around you. If you want a change of lifestyle, it will start from you. And if you are weak with temptations, that is when you will fail in trying. It is easy to say, but hard to live by. But if you have sheer determination to change whatever you have, you will move heaven and earth to achieve your targets.

[dunfida]

Nope, it's only stake's fault. The moment the user have requested self exclusion from that second his gambling features should've stopped, there he had a moment of waking up to reality, but stake didn't care and allowed him to play.

Stake is reliable and directly responsable for any lost funds. And more even if he would've one, by Stake terms they could've seize his funds at any moment after because he requested the self exclusion. This is shady behaviour and illegal. Anyone defending stake is a just a shit poster who hope they will get a giveaway from stake or just post random things for 25 cents.

There might be some lapses on Stake side but mostly it would be on users fault.Why? He knows that he's been self excluded which means that he shouldnt tend to make out some deposits despite of such condition.

If he is really that serious on stopping on gambling then he shouldnt made out any further deposits because even if Stake had completely exclude him on the site but if that addiction of yours is still intact
then you would really be finding another place for you to play on.So it would really be just a the same story and making out complaints is something that no sense.

[Fundamentals Of]

OP wouldn't have been complaining if he only won his bets. But the sad thing is that he lost them and he lost his money. That's the only reason why he is now crying foul of the failure of Stake to ban him from the site. But if we take a look at the whole situation, Stake is not the reason why this person is losing. This gambler asked to be banned but still decided to deposit money and gambled the money. What is he doing? I thought he was trying to avoid gambling?

that is the problem with someone who has an addiction, even if they are trying to stop/avoid their addiction they can easily be tempted and fall back into their old habit. like I said before stake.com is somewhat liable for what happened. if they actually banned the account when they were asked, OP would not have been able to deposit on the account he asked to be banned.

Yes, I now think Stake.com is also partially liable but the final decision is on the part of the gambler. Because even if Stake.com has already blocked him from playing, during that time when the gambler thought it was a good time to make a deposit and play, he could have ended up doing the same on another site. But again Stake.com has received OP's request but failed to act on it. That's their only fault. The acts of depositing and playing and losing are all to be blamed to the gambler.

[TopT3ns]

OP wouldn't have been complaining if he only won his bets. But the sad thing is that he lost them and he lost his money. That's the only reason why he is now crying foul of the failure of Stake to ban him from the site. But if we take a look at the whole situation, Stake is not the reason why this person is losing. This gambler asked to be banned but still decided to deposit money and gambled the money. What is he doing? I thought he was trying to avoid gambling?

that is the problem with someone who has an addiction, even if they are trying to stop/avoid their addiction they can easily be tempted and fall back into their old habit. like I said before stake.com is somewhat liable for what happened. if they actually banned the account when they were asked, OP would not have been able to deposit on the account he asked to be banned.

Yes, I now think Stake.com is also partially liable but the final decision is on the part of the gambler. Because even if Stake.com has already blocked him from playing, during that time when the gambler thought it was a good time to make a deposit and play, he could have ended up doing the same on another site. But again Stake.com has received OP's request but failed to act on it. That's their only fault. The acts of depositing and playing and losing are all to be blamed to the gambler.

Stake is not care about how level your account but I am so sad heard with OP have reach platinum level as higher level on Stake site, how ever always have reason why the OP account banned but looks with his deposit should be refund because he don't see about his account was banned before make deposit, maybe he can try with KYC procedure for solving with banned account and keep trying with asking on costumer service what next step can do for solving his account have been banned. So far I don't get any trouble trough using Stake site for gambling and keep running well with my account still on gold level without have notice banned.

[tabas]

It looks like he’s trying to disconnect himself again with gambling and I do hope that he succeed by time or he might be very busy gambling again. OP has a big problem here, and this is beyond the control of STAKE. Gambler should be more responsible and never rely on any site to help you control with your addiction, this should be your top priority to remain not addict.

We all wish him to follow what he wants to do and if he wants to avoid gambling, just make his own initiative and ways of avoiding it. He has contacted stake about it but things should be in his control now and he's the one who should control everything pertaining to his gambling activities.

That is right, at the end of the day, it is you that will take care of your business. Not the site or person around you. If you want a change of lifestyle, it will start from you. And if you are weak with temptations, that is when you will fail in trying. It is easy to say, but hard to live by. But if you have sheer determination to change whatever you have, you will move heaven and earth to achieve your targets.

Understandable of what he wants to happen but he can take the action on his own. It doesn't need to be passed on to the casino if there's an option and if they've already declined what you like.
Well, there will really be some pride with these actions and you don't want to be ignored by them if they've already made a decision that they won't do any action with regards to what you like.

[acroman08]

Yes, I now think Stake.com is also partially liable but the final decision is on the part of the gambler.

like I said "somewhat liable"

Because even if Stake.com has already blocked him from playing, during that time when the gambler thought it was a good time to make a deposit and play, he could have ended up doing the same on another site.

that doesn't really matter. the point here is, stake.com being a big company should be responsible enough to grant their gambler's request for self-exclusion on time. if the gambler decided to gamble on another website that is not stake.com's problem anymore. but what happened here is their problem.

[Hamphser]

OP wouldn't have been complaining if he only won his bets. But the sad thing is that he lost them and he lost his money. That's the only reason why he is now crying foul of the failure of Stake to ban him from the site. But if we take a look at the whole situation, Stake is not the reason why this person is losing. This gambler asked to be banned but still decided to deposit money and gambled the money. What is he doing? I thought he was trying to avoid gambling?

that is the problem with someone who has an addiction, even if they are trying to stop/avoid their addiction they can easily be tempted and fall back into their old habit. like I said before stake.com is somewhat liable for what happened. if they actually banned the account when they were asked, OP would not have been able to deposit on the account he asked to be banned.

Yes, I now think Stake.com is also partially liable but the final decision is on the part of the gambler. Because even if Stake.com has already blocked him from playing, during that time when the gambler thought it was a good time to make a deposit and play, he could have ended up doing the same on another site. But again Stake.com has received OP's request but failed to act on it. That's their only fault. The acts of depositing and playing and losing are all to be blamed to the gambler.

Stake is not care about how level your account but I am so sad heard with OP have reach platinum level as higher level on Stake site, how ever always have reason why the OP account banned but looks with his deposit should be refund because he don't see about his account was banned before make deposit, maybe he can try with KYC procedure for solving with banned account and keep trying with asking on costumer service what next step can do for solving his account have been banned. So far I don't get any trouble trough using Stake site for gambling and keep running well with my account still on gold level without have notice banned.

If he had made out some self exclusion request then he should mind not to make out some deposits afterwards since he know that requested for that even though they do let them on making out to happen but it is

actually your responsibility towards your actions and now you do took the blame and asking out for some  refund? It isnt really just right for that kind of demand even you are a
platinum member t hen you should really be that mindful on every actions that  you would make because not everytime you would really be right.

[Fundamentals Of]

Yes, I now think Stake.com is also partially liable but the final decision is on the part of the gambler.

like I said "somewhat liable"

Because even if Stake.com has already blocked him from playing, during that time when the gambler thought it was a good time to make a deposit and play, he could have ended up doing the same on another site.

that doesn't really matter. the point here is, stake.com being a big company should be responsible enough to grant their gambler's request for self-exclusion on time. if the gambler decided to gamble on another website that is not stake.com's problem anymore. but what happened here is their problem.

Yes, I agree. Perhaps if we bring this case to a court of law, Stake.com will have to answer for their failure to grant the reasonable request of one of their clients. After all, that feature is offered by the gambling site. It wasn't a personal request made outside the features of the site. It was a request as per the site's terms and conditions.

But I don't think Stake.com is liable for a refund. The moment the deposit was successful despite the request for a ban, OP should have already contacted Stake.com and complained why he still has access. By playing with and losing all of those funds, I guess it wasn't anymore Stake.com's fault.

[South Park]

It looks like he’s trying to disconnect himself again with gambling and I do hope that he succeed by time or he might be very busy gambling again. OP has a big problem here, and this is beyond the control of STAKE. Gambler should be more responsible and never rely on any site to help you control with your addiction, this should be your top priority to remain not addict.

I hope that is the reason and he is trying to get over his gambling problem, after all the majority of the people can control their gambling with no problem at all and as such even if we lose a little bit of money here and there when we gamble that is not a big deal for anyone of us, but there are a few people that are unable to do this and that is when things can get really dangerous for those that become addicted, as the more they gamble the more they lose and the more they lose the more they want to gamble, creating a vicious circle from which it is really difficult to escape.

[saxydev]

Yes, I now think Stake.com is also partially liable but the final decision is on the part of the gambler.

like I said "somewhat liable"

Because even if Stake.com has already blocked him from playing, during that time when the gambler thought it was a good time to make a deposit and play, he could have ended up doing the same on another site.

that doesn't really matter. the point here is, stake.com being a big company should be responsible enough to grant their gambler's request for self-exclusion on time. if the gambler decided to gamble on another website that is not stake.com's problem anymore. but what happened here is their problem.

That's true, the moment he even mentioned in the chat that he has a gambling problem or he wishes to self-exclude, the team should've automatically limit his ability to gamble. Perhaps sometimes they change their mind, in this case stake is mandatory to run an interview with questions for the gambler and stake must decide if gambling is an addiction for him. Questions like:

How do you find gambling?
What kind of money do you use for gambling?
Do you play with money that you can afford to lose?
How is gambling in your every day basis?

They need to have workers that know to play with this kind of situation and assist the player.

[ultraBTC]

That's true, the moment he even mentioned in the chat that he has a gambling problem or he wishes to self-exclude, the team should've automatically limit his ability to gamble. Perhaps sometimes they change their mind, in this case stake is mandatory to run an interview with questions for the gambler and stake must decide if gambling is an addiction for him. Questions like:

How do you find gambling?
What kind of money do you use for gambling?
Do you play with money that you can afford to lose?
How is gambling in your every day basis?

They need to have workers that know to play with this kind of situation and assist the player.

Agree here with @saxydev .

Some online casinos in the industry have responsible gambling measures, even if the player doesn't explicitly ask for help or self-exclusion. (such as reality checks, signs of gambling problem alerts, and similar)

Nevertheless, when the player contacts the casino and explicitly states a gambling problem, this should be a red alarm for support. Therefore, a well-instructed support team should react immediately and handle this situation.

[shasan]

Some online casinos in the industry have responsible gambling measures, even if the player doesn't explicitly ask for help or self-exclusion. (such as reality checks, signs of gambling problem alerts, and similar)

I think gambling site must have the option for self exclusion and if they face any difficulty then they should atleast help by manual self exclusion. Gambling is a high risk and high addiction service so, they should help to control gambler when they really need to stop gambling.

[molsewid]

I think gambling site must have the option for self exclusion and if they face any difficulty then they should atleast help by manual self exclusion. Gambling is a high risk and high addiction service so, they should help to control gambler when they really need to stop gambling.

I believe that any gambling sites must have a precautionary measures atleast to remind a gambler if they have been engaged in gambling activities frequently other than it's usual activities. I mean its an advantage for a gambling site to have a frequent customer enjoying their games however even if it's a gamblers responsibility to limit himself/herself I think even a simple reminder from gambling site will help to give awareness to the gamblers.

[shasan]

I believe that any gambling sites must have a precautionary measures atleast to remind a gambler if they have been engaged in gambling activities frequently other than it's usual activities. I mean its an advantage for a gambling site to have a frequent customer enjoying their games however even if it's a gamblers responsibility to limit himself/herself I think even a simple reminder from gambling site will help to give awareness to the gamblers.

Such a precautionary measure it doesn't help anything to the gambler though that will be helpful for the gambling site. As on cigarette it has been written "smoking is dangerous for health; smoking  causes heart attack or something like that. Smoker knows everything I mean all the bad sight at the same time gambler (we) know everything but we gamble. But we may sometime want to stop gambling and then we need to self exclusion mood.

[Wexnident]

I believe that any gambling sites must have a precautionary measures atleast to remind a gambler if they have been engaged in gambling activities frequently other than it's usual activities. I mean its an advantage for a gambling site to have a frequent customer enjoying their games however even if it's a gamblers responsibility to limit himself/herself I think even a simple reminder from gambling site will help to give awareness to the gamblers.

Maybe a warning about exceeding a certain amount they set beforehand, but really it's mostly empty warnings. I mean if a gambler could follow said warnings, then they could originally make their own rules to follow so really, it's not that effective. An automatic lockdown might work though but that would probably be just received with complaints.

[dothebeats]

They need to have workers that know to play with this kind of situation and assist the player.

But unfortunately they won't have people handling these type of specific request. They might send some automated response in regards to self-exclusion requested by the players but that is the best that they'd do. Stake is no doubt one of the best platforms out there, but it falls off on customer service and responsible gambling. They should be forced to create a special team that handles such request seriously, but since no repercussions are present against their deeds, why do they (Stake.com) need to care?

[qwertyup23]

Nope, it's only stake's fault. The moment the user have requested self exclusion from that second his gambling features should've stopped, there he had a moment of waking up to reality, but stake didn't care and allowed him to play.

Stake is reliable and directly responsable for any lost funds. And more even if he would've one, by Stake terms they could've seize his funds at any moment after because he requested the self exclusion. This is shady behaviour and illegal. Anyone defending stake is a just a shit poster who hope they will get a giveaway from stake or just post random things for 25 cents.

How can you associate this with Stake as their responsibility? Remember that every person has our free will and discretion to decide on our decisions. Regardless of all the temptations surrounding the gambling industry, we still have the ultimatum on how we can execute our actions in the end.

Stake cannot be held responsible for any of the loss funds if a person gambles freely. Even if a person that relapses gambles, that is not the responsibility of Stake anymore. The least thing that they can do is to block access from their servers but this can easily be circumvented if a person uses another ISP on his location.