Ban from a Casino for Nothing Other Than Winning Too Much Money

[Z390]

Truth is there is no way to believe that you are really banned because you win too much, and also for casinos doing this, they are slowly running their reputation because if a casino is well known for banning people if they win too much they will no doubt start losing customers because the fast the words travel to people the less interest they will have in such casino for gambling purposes.

I will say do not stress it if truly this is what happened, it's only a matter of time before everyone knows that the particular casino is doing this to his gamblers, also this is what makes higher popular casinos better, I don't think anyone has ever gets banned for winning too much from Stake dot com.

Some people are good at crafting lies on casinos when things don't go the way they want, instead of them to learn from their losses and gambling responsibly some other day they will decide to ruin the reputation of the casino, this is already on going even on this forum, most importantly if the accusation is coming from a fresh new account.

[Jody.Drummer]

Bena, of course this will be very useful and beneficial for gamblers, indirectly it is clear that the restrictions of this casino will be able to minimize so that something unwanted does not happen, for example, the most feared is addiction, As you said when they gamble too much even though for example they can always get a win but that's not the problem but later when luck is no longer on their side then obviously they will definitely continue to play to pursue victory as before and their assumptions are like this "maybe today I'm unlucky and I'm sure if I try it one more time it will be able to get a win like the previous time", their mindset will continue to say like that even though on the other hand they have lost a lot.

I still think there is nothing better unless they try to stop, because as you said it is exactly right, when you win you will definitely be greedy and when you lose you will definitely be curious and keep trying. So I hope they will be wiser in gambling and more realistic in seeing gambling which is clearly not a place to make a living.

This means that behind the ban, we have benefited because we can prevent problems that could arise if we were still given the freedom to get the bonuses. We also must realize that casinos cannot always give bonuses to people with a high level of luck because it will affect their financial position. So if that happens to us, we already have a choice of what we can do and we are free to move to another casino if that is what we want so that we can still get those bonuses from other casinos.

Trying to stop would be better than gambling, especially excessively, because we could lose a lot. And if we only chase wins, we can become greedy because we want bigger wins which won't always happen. We must remember that gambling is just entertainment and we cannot expect to make money from gambling. We have to be wise in how we treat gambling so that we don't experience serious problems like other people have experienced.

If you think about it - this restriction from the casino is indeed quite useful to minimize so that they are not too excessive and also clearly so that there is no opportunity for them to realize their greed. It is true that we must be able to realize the fact that casinos will not always give you luck, because obviously it is contrary to their goals, we must understand that the casino's goal is only to make us lose by deceiving our mindset through the existence of opportunities that are absolutely not guaranteed. This means that it doesn't make sense if we keep chasing the winnings there while the casino just wants us to lose because they will get a lot of profit from it. Taking a little winnings and then realizing and moving to another casino is quite reasonable, I also often do this, honestly this is one of my ways, no matter how much the winnings are, the important thing is that it is above the balance I have and I will immediately make a withdrawal and then secure my capital and use the money from the previous winnings to play at another casino, so even if you lose, it's just money from the winnings.

So the point is you can gamble but not too much, and if you realize that your personality is always easily provoked and greedy then I think it's better to just stop than to keep looking for ways to win there. The fact is that you don't win but keep losing.

[wiss19]

They basically don't have a choice other than this, they can either restrict the gambler or ban them because they can't see themselves losing so much money to a single player. They wouldn't be bothered that much if the money that a gambler is winning isn't that big, but if it's a high-roller who is constantly winning, they will be concerned, imagine someone betting $50k on each sports bet and they are winning every single bet one after the other, the casino will see their bankroll draining.

So, even though such things are rare because only one out of hundreds of thousands of gamblers will be able to make very high bets and still get constant wins and give the management a hard time, it's still not a small issue for a casino because they might not be earning as much as that single gambler is winning from them.

[Webetcoins]

This depends on the casino and as we see there are still casinos who didn't put a ban on the guy. Casino has the right to do what they want so even though it's annoying, I can't do anything but to accept their decisions. The guy seem to be very lucky to win that often because I don't think a skill alone can make that possible.

With all the money that he made, maybe he can now play for fun or with lower stakes. That way casino won't feel pressured about him which can result for him to get banned later on. This wasn't the first case that I've heard but others are only about sports betting. I'm not worried though, since I'm not that lucky in any types of gambling .

[Casdinyard]

It's nothing new. The main point of a casino is not to create winners, but to create a balance between the winners and the losers so the business model stays afloat. With people like Dana White deviating from the system and taking in more than they put out, the business will one day fall if left unchecked so as a business that's just doing what you need to do to remain operational, you'd need to make these types of players stop from playing one way or another. Turns out the best way to do so is to actually ban them from playing in your place, and that's just what they did.

Also to add to this, it's also worth noting that people like Dana White who are clearly on a different class of play ruin the game for those who are just in it for fun. Imagine you're de-stressing and you got Dana White at the other side of the table raking all the chips just cause you're not as skilled as him, that would massively suck. 

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

You would think that a casino would welcome a high roller as they should know that a gambler will have streaks both hot and cold, but the industry is weird. I think putting a max on the person is much better than banning them completely,

Yes, I totally agree with you on what you just said above, as instead of casino banning users, limiting how much they are likely to win should have been a better option, so as not to go bankrupt due to lack of proper management of inflow & outflow of funds, example, in a scenario whereby such individual happens to have a consistent straight winning. Because I have been a witness to such limitation on a new launched local Sport booker which had to limit it's winning potential simply because they were new into the business, and as such had to start low and than start increasing as the casino grows.

[passwordnow]

That's how they put someone down when they see that they're being taken down through winning most of the time. There are casinos that won't ban such guy even if winning consistently on their casino is done. What they'll do is flag that guy with a limitation and could lessen the perks given to him. Like the rewards or bonuses that they're typically giving away to all of their customers but for some reason, they'll limit that lucky guy.

So with those changes, it's like a discouragement that a change has been made to that guy even if it's not that much for him to consider. The guy will think that he's been monitored and that could give him low self-esteem and will eventually loose his interest in that casino. Usually, if the changes are good enough and we're enjoying it positively, we won't be thinking of transferring to another one.
But if it's like a perk that we enjoy or that change is certainly negatively for the account, you'll mostly think that you're not prioritized and even given less privilege which means to say that you're not being taken cared of and in result, you'll find another place to gamble.

[Oilacris]

That's how they put someone down when they see that they're being taken down through winning most of the time. There are casinos that won't ban such guy even if winning consistently on their casino is done. What they'll do is flag that guy with a limitation and could lessen the perks given to him. Like the rewards or bonuses that they're typically giving away to all of their customers but for some reason, they'll limit that lucky guy.

So with those changes, it's like a discouragement that a change has been made to that guy even if it's not that much for him to consider. The guy will think that he's been monitored and that could give him low self-esteem and will eventually loose his interest in that casino. Usually, if the changes are good enough and we're enjoying it positively, we won't be thinking of transferring to another one.
But if it's like a perk that we enjoy or that change is certainly negatively for the account, you'll mostly think that you're not prioritized and even given less privilege which means to say that you're not being taken cared of and in result, you'll find another place to gamble.

Not surprising actually because if you've been winning all the time or something that we could say that you are indeed profitable then this would really be raising up those alarms and this is indeed the time that you would really be that most likely being blocked or would be banned or prohibited to play again on the platform and since they are doing business and you are the ones who do rips those money or revenue that they are making then its not a shocking thing that they would really be getting rid of you later on. hehehe. Winning money or games into their platform on severe manner or comes into a point that you are making huge money then you would really become a pest into their site.So dont get shocked on the time that you would get banned or cant access your account later on.
Asking why? then you wont really be that so dumb on not to know on whats the actual reason behind.So on the time that you would be making out some complaints then the house would really be giving you some non so convincing reasons on why you have been banned. Trying out to whine out publicly? People would really be just basically be telling you with those obvious reasons but of course
it would really be affecting a platforms reputation and this is why it would really be still that a long discussion.

[Vaculin]

The problem is most of the casino is connected to each other so they share information about certain customers that gives them a hard time then later on him too. The person we are talking about here is a high roller with a very good analysis skills which means this person is a threat to casino industry.

Not only physical casino but also online casino is banning user or limiting their bets if they are winning too much. No business will allow someone to continuously drain their bankroll while they have a lot of customers contributing to the profit which they can focus on.

Yes, that information will be shared with other casinos to be careful of people with such high luck. Every casino owner will protect his business and limit the bets of people who usually win a lot of money. And if casinos can limit those people's bets, they can still gain an advantage over other gamblers who will lose more often.

Well, it's okay for people who are limited in their gambling and it might be an opportunity for that person to reduce their gambling activities. Think of it as a way to prevent a gambling addiction that the person may already have.

Probably for some regular gamblers, limiting their gambling bets is okay but for high rollers like Dana White, I guess it won't work for him since he is used to bet exceedingly large amount as this could be the best way so he can also gain huge winning amount if ever. But knowing gambling casinos have set their own rules that would retain their bankroll security, so it's either Dana White will leave the gambling casino or he'll just follow the order so he can still continue to bet even if it only means winning small amounts, and losing minimal amount at some point as well.

This scenario is actually not new for everyone. When you are really a threat to every casino's business, expect that they will soon to regulate your gambling activities or nevertheless ban your presence from playing inside their casino.

[Docnaster]

You would think that a casino would welcome a high roller as they should know that a gambler will have streaks both hot and cold, but the industry is weird. I think putting a max on the person is much better than banning them completely,

Yes, I totally agree with you on what you just said above, as instead of casino banning users, limiting how much they are likely to win should have been a better option, so as not to go bankrupt due to lack of proper management of inflow & outflow of funds, example, in a scenario whereby such individual happens to have a consistent straight winning. Because I have been a witness to such limitation on a new launched local Sport booker which had to limit it's winning potential simply because they were new into the business, and as such had to start low and than start increasing as the casino grows.

Banning people because of too much winning in gambling is absolutely not right and shouldn't be the best available option for Casino companies. The truth is that a lot of people have studied and mastered the result of some casino games and are very good in rightly predicting the outcome of games which makes them serial winners. So the best thing for Casino companies to do is to limit individuals from winning past a certain amount of money in a particular period of time instead of total ban.

[KTChampions]

Let's take a moment to think about this and tell me if I am correct. All of the people whom I have observed getting banned from gambling at casinos by the casino management, aside from misconduct and other offenses, are individuals who keep winning significant amounts of money. For instance, consider Dana White.  

He has been prohibited from playing at some of the city’s best casinos, including the Wynn and the Palms, due to his high-stakes gambling habits.  The UFC president is an avid gambler who has won substantial sums of money while spending hours at the tables in his chosen state of Nevada. But after some of his spectacular winning streaks, large hotel and casino locations like the Wynn have previously given him trouble. https://www.insidesport.in/accused-of-bankrupting-hotel-dana-white-explains-getting-banned-racking-up/#:~:text=He%20has%20been%20prohibited%20from,his%20chosen%20state%20of%20Nevada.

The way I perceive it is that if a person who is not cheating or engaging in illegal gambling activities consistently wins, the casino is highly likely to ban that person, just as they did with Dana White.

I was always surprised by such things - did they really think that he was a fraudster or that the mathematics broke down on him personally and the casino ceased to have an advantage? It seems to me that, on the contrary, it is beneficial for the casino when some media person wins a lot - after all, a lot of people find out about it and the casino receives additional advertising. And vice versa, after such news, I will not visit casinos about which I heard that they ban the lucky ones.

[Mahanton]

Let's take a moment to think about this and tell me if I am correct. All of the people whom I have observed getting banned from gambling at casinos by the casino management, aside from misconduct and other offenses, are individuals who keep winning significant amounts of money. For instance, consider Dana White.  

He has been prohibited from playing at some of the city’s best casinos, including the Wynn and the Palms, due to his high-stakes gambling habits.  The UFC president is an avid gambler who has won substantial sums of money while spending hours at the tables in his chosen state of Nevada. But after some of his spectacular winning streaks, large hotel and casino locations like the Wynn have previously given him trouble. https://www.insidesport.in/accused-of-bankrupting-hotel-dana-white-explains-getting-banned-racking-up/#:~:text=He%20has%20been%20prohibited%20from,his%20chosen%20state%20of%20Nevada.

The way I perceive it is that if a person who is not cheating or engaging in illegal gambling activities consistently wins, the casino is highly likely to ban that person, just as they did with Dana White.

I was always surprised by such things - did they really think that he was a fraudster or that the mathematics broke down on him personally and the casino ceased to have an advantage? It seems to me that, on the contrary, it is beneficial for the casino when some media person wins a lot - after all, a lot of people find out about it and the casino receives additional advertising. And vice versa, after such news, I will not visit casinos about which I heard that they ban the lucky ones.

Is it worth it? No its not. If they do have those gamblers who do make out some huge wins on a scenario on which it is way more than could be seen into those other places then they would really be making out such exposure or would really be some additional marketing or awareness into the public but is it really worth? pretty sure it wouldnt because the number of revenue or profits that they are making is really not that enough
on the people who do keeps playing on the site. It is really that hard to believe that codes or simply those maths would be broken on which it would really be giving out that odds or chance for it players to have its advantage. We do know on whats the truth and how it do operates but if everything is really just that fine and really that in line but still there's some people who do able to manage to win up
consecutively then it would really be that not shocking or something normal that they would really be banning to those who do constantly win.

Its true that it wont really be that good to hear off that a certain platform or place does really ban out people just they do make out some winning. This is really that a shady part of them
on which you cant really be that so confident or really that assure that you would get paid up on the time that you do able to make some good big hit.
Therefore, it does have that cons whenever they do make out such decision.

[passwordnow]

~snip~

That's their way of stopping a player, when you are profitable and they don't see you stopping anytime soon then they have to take action because you might disrupt the business or contribute to their further losses. This only gives the idea that no matter how good you are, they are still a business after all. Anything that can be threatening to their business, they need to act on it before it does the damage entirely. Well, it might not matter to them if you're just winning with a couple of bucks and they will allow you to keep going. I haven't been into that situation so I can't say a lot but those that I've read gives the thought on how it feels on their end that they're disappointed and being a loyal gambler to those particular casinos lost their trust on them just because of that. They're right with that feeling and as like a fan of those casinos, they should be taken well but it's the opposite that's given to them when they're just too lucky to win for so many tmes and with such huge amounts.

[Oilacris]

~snip~

That's their way of stopping a player, when you are profitable and they don't see you stopping anytime soon then they have to take action because you might disrupt the business or contribute to their further losses. This only gives the idea that no matter how good you are, they are still a business after all. Anything that can be threatening to their business, they need to act on it before it does the damage entirely. Well, it might not matter to them if you're just winning with a couple of bucks and they will allow you to keep going. I haven't been into that situation so I can't say a lot but those that I've read gives the thought on how it feels on their end that they're disappointed and being a loyal gambler to those particular casinos lost their trust on them just because of that. They're right with that feeling and as like a fan of those casinos, they should be taken well but it's the opposite that's given to them when they're just too lucky to win for so many tmes and with such huge amounts.

Those impressions would totally changed on the time that they have seen that the player that they had just simply let to go on is really making some huge haul into their profits
and this is the time that treatment would really be that suddenly changed which it do really sucks specially if you've been playing on the platform for too long or simply having that loyalty but just because of that being that lucky or profitable then all of those things do really changed up on point. Well, you could really easily make switch in between places knowing that they are really just that almost the same, they do only differ on UI/UX but when it comes to offering then it would really be just that the same. Loyalty somehow doesnt really fit on this industry because someone could easily switch up if ever they would really be experiencing some issues. If that things happen on me then i would just simply skip into other places and play and apply that being too lucky and wrecked
up their bankroll. LOL!

[qwertyup23]

Actually this is nothing new for high roller or professional gambler, first the casino will limit the account, if he's keep winning and drain the casino's money, they will take the last step to ban the account.

Since Dana White was gamble in land based casino, it's more easier for the operator/staff to ban the high roller or professional gambler.

I'm not saying the casino is bad or unethical for doing that, but they must do everything to make their business not going to bankrupt, right?

I do think that the casino has the right to ban anyone for whatever purpose they may deemed so. But before they ban such person, they must also have a reason for doing such since if they exercise this power, they run the risk of ruining their reputation in seconds.

In the given story provided by OP, Dana White is known to be a high stakes player. Since he is the owner of UFC and he has boat loads of cash in his disposal, he can gamble away millions of dollars like he is just buying candy at a store. Of course, gambling contains the risks of two (2) parties- the player; and the owner of the casino.

While Dana White may have lost some money in the process, he still has won some money in which the casino deemed it necessary for him to be prohibited to enter their establishment.

[Ever-young]

At least there are people who can still beat the casinos to their own games, since the casino are know to be built to favour them only which less down 10% of their customers are the ones winning and the rest 90% are likely to be the one losing and those lose are the casino own winning.

This guy might have figure out how to beat this casinos and the casino won’t like that at all, and the only thing that they can do to the guy is to ban and restrict him from using their service for life, if it’s some casino they could have not also allowed him to withdraw some of his last winnings which could have been way worst than it is right now.

He can always go to other casino and continue his gambling life as he appear to be a VIP gambler and many casino will be happy to have him until they see the amount of winning he actually wins daily then maybe those ones can also give him their own kind of restriction.

[KTChampions]

I was always surprised by such things - did they really think that he was a fraudster or that the mathematics broke down on him personally and the casino ceased to have an advantage? It seems to me that, on the contrary, it is beneficial for the casino when some media person wins a lot - after all, a lot of people find out about it and the casino receives additional advertising. And vice versa, after such news, I will not visit casinos about which I heard that they ban the lucky ones.

Is it worth it? No its not. If they do have those gamblers who do make out some huge wins on a scenario on which it is way more than could be seen into those other places then they would really be making out such exposure or would really be some additional marketing or awareness into the public but is it really worth? pretty sure it wouldnt because the number of revenue or profits that they are making is really not that enough
~

Why do you think so? If the math works correctly, then the casino on average always has the same amount of profit as a percentage of turnover. Moreover, the existence of large winnings for some players is an inevitable pattern - among tens of thousands of gamblers who try hundreds of thousands of times, someone must be very lucky, this is the law of large numbers. I don't see any point in banning these lucky ones.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Let's take a moment to think about this and tell me if I am correct. All of the people whom I have observed getting banned from gambling at casinos by the casino management, aside from misconduct and other offenses, are individuals who keep winning significant amounts of money. For instance, consider Dana White.  

He has been prohibited from playing at some of the city’s best casinos, including the Wynn and the Palms, due to his high-stakes gambling habits.  The UFC president is an avid gambler who has won substantial sums of money while spending hours at the tables in his chosen state of Nevada. But after some of his spectacular winning streaks, large hotel and casino locations like the Wynn have previously given him trouble. https://www.insidesport.in/accused-of-bankrupting-hotel-dana-white-explains-getting-banned-racking-up/#:~:text=He%20has%20been%20prohibited%20from,his%20chosen%20state%20of%20Nevada.

The way I perceive it is that if a person who is not cheating or engaging in illegal gambling activities consistently wins, the casino is highly likely to ban that person, just as they did with Dana White.

Well, this is nothing new if you ask me, this is something majorly any casino will do to any gambler who the casino discover to be staking high and constantly wining, though there are still some casinos that won't outrightly ban the gambler, but they will limit the gambler in some games which they discover that the gambler is always wining on.

The latter above I personally think is a better approach than outrighly and complately banning the gambler, I personally have seen a case where a gambler was always winning on a particular sports betting on stake, he was betting really high and constantly winning high amount of money, at a point, stake had to limit the gambler to a maximum of $5 per bet (if i still remember well) on that particular sports game, this simply means that, he can not bet more than $5 on games on that particular sports, if he wants to bet more or higher, then he has to try betting on other types of sports or possibly play other games like casino games or slot games.

[Yatsan]

I don’t get it; the gambler won’t win constinuously ‘coz that’s impossible. Also, no matter how big a gambler would wage, a single player’s bet (considering that it is city’s best casino) won’t be enough to cause trouble with the overall bankroll. Maybe this is just an isolated case and others won’t do the same thing.There are other ways to resolve this than to immediately ban a player. Gambling platforms should love players who stake high ‘coz they’d earn from him.If these casinos would continue doing this, then they shouldn’t be in line with the “best” ‘coz they are not having the right bankroll distribution which threatens them of bankruptcy. Problem is not with the gambler but the casino itself.

[btc_angela]

I don’t get it; the gambler won’t win constinuously ‘coz that’s impossible. Also, no matter how big a gambler would wage, a single player’s bet (considering that it is city’s best casino) won’t be enough to cause trouble with the overall bankroll. Maybe this is just an isolated case and others won’t do the same thing.There are other ways to resolve this than to immediately ban a player. Gambling platforms should love players who stake high ‘coz they’d earn from him.If these casinos would continue doing this, then they shouldn’t be in line with the “best” ‘coz they are not having the right bankroll distribution which threatens them of bankruptcy. Problem is not with the gambler but the casino itself.

Well it's really hard to believed that someone will be ban, unless that is one famous player that exploited the system of the casino. Like Ivey,

The battle in the courtrooms stemmed from several epic high-stakes baccarat sessions in 2012. Ivey and his partner, Cheung Yin “Kelly” Sun, beat the Borgata out of $9.6 million. After it was revealed that the duo was using a controversial technique called “edge sorting,” the casino filed suit against Ivey and Sun.

The technique allowed the pair to spot manufacturing defects on the cards and gain an edge over the casino. Ivey and Sun used the same technique in the UK at London’s Crockfords casino and won £7.8 million, but the casino wouldn’t pay out the money. Ivey sued the casino and lost.

Borgata, on the other hand, paid Ivey and Sun and were forced to use the legal system to try and get the money back.

Borgata sued for $15.6 million two years after Ivey’s massive win. The total which included hundreds of thousands of dollars in comps and the $5.4 million the casino’s legal team figured the casino would have beaten Ivey for if he had been playing straight up.

In 2016, the judge decided that Ivey would be forced to pay the casino $10.1 million, after factoring the $500,000 Ivey won playing craps after his baccarat session.

https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/25107-poker-legend-phil-ivey-settles-10-1-million-lawsuit-with-borgata

But that is a rare cash for a player to beat the casinos in their own game and it has consequences, like being used and then they are obviously going to be ban on that casino itself. And who knows, if you are ban in one casino, you could also be ban on others