How to self exclude from anonymous gambling sites

[Russlenat]

Of course, but I was just sharing my opinion that I don't need that kind of feature if I really want to get out from addiction
It's not easy to get out, I tell you, I have been addicted before but I didn't fix my problem alone, it was my family who help me along the way, not a casino because I know even if I use that I could still lie to myself and just gamble in a different casino.
-cut-

That option doesn't hurt though, and casinos are required by law to have it. Obviously it isn't the key issue, but it sends a signal, and that signal is it's ok to seek help, that addiction might not be under your control. It isn't as much as your control as a message it says. Of course you can go around that, and it would be pretty draconian if you couldn't. People are pretty free to do what ever they want, and if they don't want to heal from addiction, no one can fix those problems for us, or stop us really. They can just help. Decision to get fixed comes from ourselves.

Seriously it's law requires them? Is there any way you can proved this like citing a certain law that requires a casino to have this "self exclusion" feature under their platform? I explored some casinos and I didn't see a lot of them have that, and most of them is under the same regulator, so I'm quite curious about this one because I felt the government doesn't really put weight into making this one a mandatory thing.

But congratz for getting your addiction in order. It usually takes family or other people in close circle, especially if we are in debt.

Thanks mate, just sharing how I resolve my gambling addiction, and it was really because of my family, without them I can't imagine where I am now. So I suggest that we should not be ashame of our situation now, seek help when necessary, besides your family is the best people you can turn to when you are in trouble.

[o48o]

That option doesn't hurt though, and casinos are required by law to have it. Obviously it isn't the key issue, but it sends a signal, and that signal is it's ok to seek help, that addiction might not be under your control. It isn't as much as your control as a message it says. Of course you can go around that, and it would be pretty draconian if you couldn't. People are pretty free to do what ever they want, and if they don't want to heal from addiction, no one can fix those problems for us, or stop us really. They can just help. Decision to get fixed comes from ourselves.

Seriously it's law requires them? Is there any way you can proved this like citing a certain law that requires a casino to have this "self exclusion" feature under their platform? I explored some casinos and I didn't see a lot of them have that, and most of them is under the same regulator, so I'm quite curious about this one because I felt the government doesn't really put weight into making this one a mandatory thing.

What casinos were these?

I don't think i can find that in a sentence, as it's not like they have to specifically offer only "self exclusion", as laws are different all over the world, but many countries have similar customer protection laws, and option for voluntary self exclusion is widely accepted in different countries as a law. And if these casinos want to serve users from these countries legally, they have to comply with their laws and offer same customer protection that they require.

You can google self exclusion or restriction program / act / law and find lots of data. I am not going to list everything i find, it would take ages

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2016/title-5/section-5-12-71
https://www.liquorandgaming.nsw.gov.au/community-and-stakeholders/community-support/self-exclusion-from-the-casino-and-gaming-venues/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-exclusion

[khaled0111]

Seriously it's law requires them? Is there any way you can proved this like citing a certain law that requires a casino to have this "self exclusion" feature under their platform? I explored some casinos and I didn't see a lot of them have that

Most if not all license providers take responsible gambling seriously and they have set many policies and terms to prevent gambling addiction. Licensed casinos have to comply with those terms and execute the policies.
Anyways, even if they aren't obliged to do so, they must do it out of respect for their customers. It's true that gambling is a for-profit business but casinos shouldn't be making profit at the expense of gambling addicts' misery.

[Hamphser]

Seriously it's law requires them? Is there any way you can proved this like citing a certain law that requires a casino to have this "self exclusion" feature under their platform? I explored some casinos and I didn't see a lot of them have that

Most if not all license providers take responsible gambling seriously and they have set many policies and terms to prevent gambling addiction. Licensed casinos have to comply with those terms and execute the policies.
Anyways, even if they aren't obliged to do so, they must do it out of respect for their customers. It's true that gambling is a for-profit business but casinos shouldn't be making profit at the expense of gambling addicts' misery.

Respect? I dont think so. It might be that a total lie but they are more preferring that most of them would really be that becoming too addicted.   We do know that on the time that they would really become that addicted then this is the time that they would really be making that huge spending and that means that it is really that a huge money for them. Just like on what i have said earlier that they wont really be making that much focus or attention on offering out that exclusion because they do really prefer for their users to be that addicted. Rules and terms doesnt mind much in this regard because it is really on someones choice
on why they would really be playing up even more with gambling and having that problem when it comes on the time that they would really be stopping.

[nimogsm]

For example, you stake (lock) $200 of your crypto, and that's all crypto available for you - then you can't play/gamble/risk it for at least 21 days ... do it 15 times a year time after time, and you would be excluded for a long time.

This is one very important idea to even prevent compulsive gambling attitudes. I if a gambler has a very bad attitude or lifestyle that they are living because of gambling and they are at the point where they can no longer control their money for good utilization except they put everything in gambling and loss it at once, they can practice this lock staking investment and it will help them not to have access to the money and they will not gamble so compulsively again. I love the idea but I don't like atomic wallet, so people said it is not too safe to use.

This is more likely to delay the problem than to solve it. If a player already has problems managing his gambling expenses, he definitely needs to turn to specialists who will help him get rid of his gambling addiction.Ultimately, the safety deposit will be lost or the player will go into debt to win back what he lost because he is unaware that he has a small safety deposit.

[danadc]

For example, you stake (lock) $200 of your crypto, and that's all crypto available for you - then you can't play/gamble/risk it for at least 21 days ... do it 15 times a year time after time, and you would be excluded for a long time.

This is one very important idea to even prevent compulsive gambling attitudes. I if a gambler has a very bad attitude or lifestyle that they are living because of gambling and they are at the point where they can no longer control their money for good utilization except they put everything in gambling and loss it at once, they can practice this lock staking investment and it will help them not to have access to the money and they will not gamble so compulsively again. I love the idea but I don't like atomic wallet, so people said it is not too safe to use.

This is more likely to delay the problem than to solve it. If a player already has problems managing his gambling expenses, he definitely needs to turn to specialists who will help him get rid of his gambling addiction.Ultimately, the safety deposit will be lost or the player will go into debt to win back what he lost because he is unaware that he has a small safety deposit.

The games in the casinos are one of the things that we can generate to earn some money when we know how to play, but a person who has fallen into addiction and does not want to fall again, because sometimes they make the decision to exclude themselves, the players who enter and then are afraid of falling into addiction, it is not bad that they exclude themselves but Without leaving money in a casino, because it is very bad that they could be having it like this because it affects their entire family, and the same person, this is something that we We have to see whenever we are playing, it is very easy to fall into addiction but very difficult to Overcome it , I have never fallen into addiction but if it can be avoided you can do these types of things.

[joniboini]

We do know that on the time that they would really become that addicted then this is the time that they would really be making that huge spending and that means that it is really that a huge money for them. Just like on what i have said earlier that they wont really be making that much focus or attention on offering out that exclusion because they do really prefer for their users to be that addicted.

Eh, I don't think the market is that bleak. I mean, if every customer is addicted, they can also lose a lot of money because most of the time gambling addicts have no money to spend. Having a steady income or a healthy amount of customers is what they need. Obviously, there are also business who don't give a damn about that and what as much money in the shortest amount of time as possible. I think this is true regardless of what kind of business you're looking at. A company will use that to their advantage if there's no law to prevent any abuse.

Is there any way you can proved this like citing a certain law that requires a casino to have this "self exclusion" feature under their platform? I explored some casinos and I didn't see a lot of them have that, and most of them is under the same regulator, so I'm quite curious about this one because I felt the government doesn't really put weight into making this one a mandatory thing.

Have you tried to search with a keyword like "Curacao self-exclusion law" or something similar? Replace Curacao with the license that your casino has. I managed to find a few articles talking about the rights of self-exclude doing that.

[Bitinity]

Besides, even if you don't request to be excluded, casino owners still can close your account when they notice any signs of addiction.
This has nothing yo do with being a "man" or not.

Seriously, this thing exist? How can they actually notice any signs of addiction when they didn't see the gambler in personal, so they cannot evaluate, and besides, even if they notice a gambler to be addicted, they have no right to stop a gambler as long as he has money to play and he isn't violating the TOS.

I heard that some casinos stop gamblers when they are winning too much, but never heard a casino stop a gambler because he is losing too much.  

As I said before, I have never heard casino that close player's account because the casino notice that there is a sign of addiction. Even if such thing exist, I have no idea how the casino consider players as addicted because I think it is hard thing to know. Casino may notice a behavior change of the player indeed based on the deposit/wager activity but I dont think casino will close the account immediately one the casino notice it. As they are business, they will be happy if their players play more than before but some casinos may notify their players about their gambling activity. Stake for example, I heard that some players get notification email once the player reach a specific amount of deposit within a month although the players do not set a limit.

[joniboini]

Even if such thing exist, I have no idea how the casino consider players as addicted because I think it is hard thing to know. Casino may notice a behavior change of the player indeed based on the deposit/wager activity but I dont think casino will close the account immediately one the casino notice it.

I don't recall seeing other businesses do something similar to that too. An exchange for example won't suddenly close your account just because you made a ton of deposits, maybe they will ask for KYC but they sure as hell love more deposits from us. Trying to be a police for something else is just a waste of time for them IMO. Unless the law specifically asks them to do so, they won't do anything about it. They have no moral obligation to do that anyway, and the players need to look after themselves to begin with.

[Zadicar]

Even if such thing exist, I have no idea how the casino consider players as addicted because I think it is hard thing to know. Casino may notice a behavior change of the player indeed based on the deposit/wager activity but I dont think casino will close the account immediately one the casino notice it.

I don't recall seeing other businesses do something similar to that too. An exchange for example won't suddenly close your account just because you made a ton of deposits, maybe they will ask for KYC but they sure as hell love more deposits from us. Trying to be a police for something else is just a waste of time for them IMO. Unless the law specifically asks them to do so, they won't do anything about it. They have no moral obligation to do that anyway, and the players need to look after themselves to begin with.

Closing it out directly without users consent is really something that ethical on doing so considering that it would really be that a scammy behavior. Why would the hell they would really be closing out on users account just because of tending not to make more deposits? Its true that they do really love it instead on which we know that gamblers are mostly losers on which means that they are really indeed making money into those businesses and they would really be preferring on someone to continue to play until the very last drop and this is something that would be having no sense that they will really be locking it out without any consent or awareness of a certain gambler not unless if there would really be some sort of request then they might be able to grant it out but if there's none then why would the heck they would be doing it.
Business is business and doesnt matter onw what are the life conditions that you do have which they dont really care at all.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Why would the hell they would really be closing out on users account just because of tending not to make more deposits?

For me that is an abuse and a total lack of respect on the part of the casino towards the customers, because basically if I create my account in a casino and verify it, that account must be respected, I don't say anything if they create an account and it is not verified And time passes and nothing, maybe I accept it, but if they create the account they verify it and if they don't make the deposit then they close it? That's something that's not within the normal parameters for me, or I know if TOS makes those rules, because if it does there's nothing to do, but if they don't say them then those things shouldn't be allowed to do anything at all, Well, That is the same as having an account with money and not being active in 1 year and when they say that the account was deleted, they are very unpleasant things.

[Hamphser]

We do know that on the time that they would really become that addicted then this is the time that they would really be making that huge spending and that means that it is really that a huge money for them. Just like on what i have said earlier that they wont really be making that much focus or attention on offering out that exclusion because they do really prefer for their users to be that addicted.

Eh, I don't think the market is that bleak. I mean, if every customer is addicted, they can also lose a lot of money because most of the time gambling addicts have no money to spend. Having a steady income or a healthy amount of customers is what they need. Obviously, there are also business who don't give a damn about that and what as much money in the shortest amount of time as possible. I think this is true regardless of what kind of business you're looking at. A company will use that to their advantage if there's no law to prevent any abuse.

It wouldnt be called as an abuse since you haven't been forced on playing gambling into their platform on which means that you've been playing by you own will. Therefore, they would really be that safe
when it comes to that and it would rally be that laughable that you would really be trying out to blame them just because you have lost too much. 

Just like been said that they would really be letting people do play as much as they could and as much as they want and as long they do have the money that they could spend then its their full rights
on when they would be stopping which is usually it is on the moment that they would losing it all.

Exclusions arent that available all the time and just like on what most people been saying on here that this isnt a feature that they would be focusing on having into.
If there's one then it would be some sort of formality or trying to make themselves look that they do really care for you.

[Dunamisx]

For example, you stake (lock) $200 of your crypto, and that's all crypto available for you - then you can't play/gamble/risk it for at least 21 days ... do it 15 times a year time after time, and you would be excluded for a long time.

This is one very important idea to even prevent compulsive gambling attitudes. I if a gambler has a very bad attitude or lifestyle that they are living because of gambling and they are at the point where they can no longer control their money for good utilization except they put everything in gambling and loss it at once, they can practice this lock staking investment and it will help them not to have access to the money and they will not gamble so compulsively again. I love the idea but I don't like atomic wallet, so people said it is not too safe to use.

This is more likely to delay the problem than to solve it. If a player already has problems managing his gambling expenses, he definitely needs to turn to specialists who will help him get rid of his gambling addiction.Ultimately, the safety deposit will be lost or the player will go into debt to win back what he lost because he is unaware that he has a small safety deposit.

The games in the casinos are one of the things that we can generate to earn some money when we know how to play, but a person who has fallen into addiction and does not want to fall again, because sometimes they make the decision to exclude themselves, the players who enter and then are afraid of falling into addiction, it is not bad that they exclude themselves but Without leaving money in a casino, because it is very bad that they could be having it like this because it affects their entire family, and the same person, this is something that we We have to see whenever we are playing, it is very easy to fall into addiction but very difficult to Overcome it , I have never fallen into addiction but if it can be avoided you can do these types of things.

With everything ongoing regarding gamblers experience from using a crypto casino, we have to set a target to what we wanted and how we engage from the way we are gambling, this is for the benefit and purpose of achieving our personal satisfaction, even though we are not much focused on other things which may serve as challenge at the course, each gambler will only want to be satisfied by being anonymous from the way he has chosen to experience his gambling lifestyle without considering others.

[EarnOnVictor]

Even if such thing exist, I have no idea how the casino consider players as addicted because I think it is hard thing to know. Casino may notice a behavior change of the player indeed based on the deposit/wager activity but I dont think casino will close the account immediately one the casino notice it.

I don't recall seeing other businesses do something similar to that too. An exchange for example won't suddenly close your account just because you made a ton of deposits, maybe they will ask for KYC but they sure as hell love more deposits from us. Trying to be a police for something else is just a waste of time for them IMO. Unless the law specifically asks them to do so, they won't do anything about it. They have no moral obligation to do that anyway, and the players need to look after themselves to begin with.

You have many things said over there to the point that I began to get confused on which one to reply to as they seem not necessarily related. Notwithstanding, the way gambling is being related to and engaged with is not the same as trading and investment, and if you are sincere, how many traders/investors have you seen so addicted to them to the point that it becomes a serious issue that calls for either internal or external help to get them cured? That is why we should not relate them together and the more reason why brokers, exchanges etc are less concerned about this, and even the government. If a trader and investors are losing so much, they always caution themselves and it is so easy. This is unlike gambling which is tempting and addictive on its own.

As for the KYC completion, I do not think that any standard and well-regulated brokers and exchanges are so relaxed to the point that they will allow you to be trading for so long without completing them, No. If it were to be with exchanges of before, fine, you might cite some examples, but when it comes to standard, reputation and regulation, you will hardly see one today. It got more strict with the brokers, you will never be able to withdraw a dime from your account without completing your KYC, that's how stringent it is.

Lastly, the policing remark is not just appropriate in my opinion as the government and good casinos are only finding ways to help the addicts one way or the other. And to always encourage a sane society, I do not think it's too much if such is considered for special cases.

[Shamm]

Even if such thing exist, I have no idea how the casino consider players as addicted because I think it is hard thing to know. Casino may notice a behavior change of the player indeed based on the deposit/wager activity but I dont think casino will close the account immediately one the casino notice it.

I don't recall seeing other businesses do something similar to that too. An exchange for example won't suddenly close your account just because you made a ton of deposits, maybe they will ask for KYC but they sure as hell love more deposits from us. Trying to be a police for something else is just a waste of time for them IMO. Unless the law specifically asks them to do so, they won't do anything about it. They have no moral obligation to do that anyway, and the players need to look after themselves to begin with.

The casino will know if thier customers is already addicted or not. And one of the best example of that is when thier customers always depositing money from time to time and also always playing even though  they are to unlucky. The casino can monitor the bankroll of every players they have so once they got an information that account is too greedy and always depositing then that's a good customer that can make the casino richer. And yes you are right that mate the casino didn't lock  the account of a gambler once. It will always deposit unless that account break the rules. Cause we all know that every casino has a rules and regulations.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Even if such thing exist, I have no idea how the casino consider players as addicted because I think it is hard thing to know. Casino may notice a behavior change of the player indeed based on the deposit/wager activity but I dont think casino will close the account immediately one the casino notice it.

I don't recall seeing other businesses do something similar to that too. An exchange for example won't suddenly close your account just because you made a ton of deposits, maybe they will ask for KYC but they sure as hell love more deposits from us. Trying to be a police for something else is just a waste of time for them IMO. Unless the law specifically asks them to do so, they won't do anything about it. They have no moral obligation to do that anyway, and the players need to look after themselves to begin with.

Well, In some countries or jurisdictions, I don't know about online gambling casinos, but exchanges, and I mean crypto exchanges are actually directed or required under the law, to report every that is above $10,000 to the government, and also, if they suspect any thing wrong with the deposit or where the money (the address) is coming from, they are also at the liberty of freezing the account the money was deposited into, until the users answers some questions, or the exchange in conjunction with the regulators, are able to confirm the legitimacy of the funds, and are sure it's not being used to commit or facilitate any crime related offenses like laundering and other vices.

Like I said before, I don't know if such laws/instructions are also passed to casinos as well, I've never heard of any, but about crypto exchanges, this law is present in some countries and or jurisdictions.

[khaled0111]

Closing it out directly without users consent is really something that ethical on doing so considering that it would really be that a scammy behavior. Why would the hell they would really be closing out on users account just because of tending not to make more deposits?

Why would you consider it unethical when it's actually the right thing to do?
When a casino notices that one of their users is showing signs of addiction then the right thing to do is to lock his account immediately to stop him from losing more money.
I'm a bit lost here! Some say if they do it then it's unethical while the others say if they don't do it then they are greedy!

[panjul07]

Closing it out directly without users consent is really something that ethical on doing so considering that it would really be that a scammy behavior. Why would the hell they would really be closing out on users account just because of tending not to make more deposits?

Why would you consider it unethical when it's actually the right thing to do?
When a casino notices that one of their users is showing signs of addiction then the right thing to do is to lock his account immediately to stop him from losing more money.
I'm a bit lost here! Some say if they do it then it's unethical while the others say if they don't do it then they are greedy!

If casino has such practice means that the casino is losing their profit, I doubt there is a casino with such practice, let me know if there is casino that do such practice.
The most possible thing to happen in this gambling industry is that the casino will warn the players only with email/pop up notification, at least based on my own experience in several different casinos.
Also remember about the warning in almost all casino "gamble responsibly", it means that everything we do in the casino is our own responsibility.
Lets say I have the chance to have a casino, I will not close my player's account because I think that my player is addicted but I'll just warn him and let him decide what to do.

[Hispo]

Closing it out directly without users consent is really something that ethical on doing so considering that it would really be that a scammy behavior. Why would the hell they would really be closing out on users account just because of tending not to make more deposits?

Why would you consider it unethical when it's actually the right thing to do?
When a casino notices that one of their users is showing signs of addiction then the right thing to do is to lock his account immediately to stop him from losing more money.
I'm a bit lost here! Some say if they do it then it's unethical while the others say if they don't do it then they are greedy!

I believe it is ethical but only if the gambler has accepted those terms in before and he is aware his account may be closed if he shows signs of addiction of if he gives some approval for his account to be terminated. Others may suggest that closing the account and giving the gambler the money he has left in the account is even more ethical, but that is very rare to happen, considering casinos benefit from the gambling volume.
You know, the owners of casinos or those in charge of their economical profitability have realized that even if they decided to exclude those gamblers who are obviously going through addiction problems, those gamblers will continue to indulge in their addiction anyways on other platforms. In the end, the level of addiction is so strong that they will not care to keep going in other shady and small casinos.

What it is wrong and right kind of depends on the personal view we have about where our personal responsibility ends and where the responsibility of the casino begins.

[Dewi Aries]

Even if such thing exist, I have no idea how the casino consider players as addicted because I think it is hard thing to know. Casino may notice a behavior change of the player indeed based on the deposit/wager activity but I dont think casino will close the account immediately one the casino notice it.

I don't recall seeing other businesses do something similar to that too. An exchange for example won't suddenly close your account just because you made a ton of deposits, maybe they will ask for KYC but they sure as hell love more deposits from us. Trying to be a police for something else is just a waste of time for them IMO. Unless the law specifically asks them to do so, they won't do anything about it. They have no moral obligation to do that anyway, and the players need to look after themselves to begin with.

The casino will know if thier customers is already addicted or not. And one of the best example of that is when thier customers always depositing money from time to time and also always playing even though  they are to unlucky. The casino can monitor the bankroll of every players they have so once they got an information that account is too greedy and always depositing then that's a good customer that can make the casino richer. And yes you are right that mate the casino didn't lock  the account of a gambler once. It will always deposit unless that account break the rules. Cause we all know that every casino has a rules and regulations.

For me and according to a healthy mindset that I think is quite reasonable to put forward that casinos are businesses engaged in gambling, the name of the business must be the main thing that is prioritized is profit, and the question is where do they get these profits? I think it is clear that all casinos get these profits from gamblers who lose and the fact is that now more and more casinos are popping up which means this business is really profitable. This means that I don't believe that casinos will close or lock the accounts of gamblers because it is detected that the accounts always deposit money even if they lose, because that's what casinos want which is when a gambler is more aggressive in gambling then that's when casinos will make more and more profits. And I only believe that casinos will close your account if they detect that you are doing suspicious things or violating the rules applied.