self-exclusion discussion

[stadus]

I’ve come across quite a few scam accusations where users claimed their accounts were under 'self-exclusion,' yet they still ended up gambling. There was even one user who complained about a casino allowing them to play despite being self-excluded. So, I’m curious...  how many of you actually use this feature to curb your gambling? Or is it not really effective, since determined gamblers can just switch to another casino?

When issues like this arise, and you don’t know the full story, what’s your first impression?

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

[Beparanf]

I’ve come across quite a few scam accusations where users claimed their accounts were under 'self-exclusion,' yet they still ended up gambling. There was even one user who complained about a casino allowing them to play despite being self-excluded. So, I’m curious...  how many of you actually use this feature to curb your gambling? Or is it not really effective, since determined gamblers can just switch to another casino?

I use this feature once on a casino that I don’t plan to use anymore because of the terrible bad luck I always experienced on it. Self-exclusion is effective on me since I can’t use my account during this period.

When issues like this arise, and you don’t know the full story, what’s your first impression?

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

Imho, most of the user with problem like this are those trying to cheat with the casino and use this excuse as insurance in case they lose.

Assuming that the casino is indeed doesn’t exclude the account, that’s not a good reason to still gamble and blame them after lose since they can always create new account on same casino or different casino to play since online casino accessible to anyone.

[swogerino]

I’ve come across quite a few scam accusations where users claimed their accounts were under 'self-exclusion,' yet they still ended up gambling. There was even one user who complained about a casino allowing them to play despite being self-excluded. So, I’m curious...  how many of you actually use this feature to curb your gambling? Or is it not really effective, since determined gamblers can just switch to another casino?

When issues like this arise, and you don’t know the full story, what’s your first impression?

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

I have used it to exclude myself definitely and I have used it at Stake casino because to me their RTP was clearly messed up and I thought if continuing playing there were plain nonsense because I kept losing every single day, not a single day for 1 one exact year, the year of 2024 until early January 2025 I have told them to completely limit my account for an undetermined amount of time and they did so, I can log in there but I can't do anything without asking support to unlock my account first. So what does this mean , this mean that it is up to only us as individuals how bad do we want to achieve self-exclusion and there has got nothing to do with the casino, the casino will always have mechanism in place to suck you back in to their platforms.

[Charles-Tim]

Self-exclusion may be effective on land-based casinos (not in all countries) but not effective on online casinos. Even self-exclusion in my country is not effective with betting agents if you can go to other betting agents because there are many gambling sites that have betting agents. Self-exclusion is only 100% effective when you exclude yourself in a way you do not gamble or bet at all. It is not about the feature on the gambling site but about what comes from your mind towards gambling in a way you do not gamble at all.

[Free Market Capitalist]

 I used self-exclusion very occasionally a long time ago, it was more a form of prevention because I was starting to play poker and I was not sure where it could lead me.

Self-exclusion may be effective on land-based casinos (not in all countries) but not effective on online casinos.

It is effective at least in some online casinos, such as Pokerstars and Pacific, for example.

The problem I see is not so much that a casino offers you self-exclusion and then does not respect it, as we have seen in accusations on the forum. The problem is that if you have a problem of self-control you have a lot of other casinos where you can play, so self-exclusion can help in a specific moment but if you have a big problem, or you think you are on the way to it, it is useless and you have to look for other ways of solution.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

I’ve come across quite a few scam accusations where users claimed their accounts were under 'self-exclusion,' yet they still ended up gambling. There was even one user who complained about a casino allowing them to play despite being self-excluded. So, I’m curious...  how many of you actually use this feature to curb your gambling? Or is it not really effective, since determined gamblers can just switch to another casino?

When issues like this arise, and you don’t know the full story, what’s your first impression?

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

Didn't know about this feature on casinos, else it would've helped me a lot during my addiction days, maybe it existed then(about 7-9 years ago) and I never knew, or maybe it is a new feature. Its all in the past now though. I have never used it though.

I perfected the pattern of self exclusion which involves myself avoiding my device for a period of time and not logging into my account and also regulating the casino activities to be the last thing I have to do for the day, so sometimes I might not even have enough time for it.

Finally, I made sure I don't have my gambling account logged into all my devices. It is only in a certain laptop and phone of mine and I don't use them all the time, at least not for official or business purposes, so I am able to stay off the casino to do important things until I get home later on and have access to those devices. I used the principle of separation of concerns too as my very way of self exclusion and it surely worked for me.

I think if the gambler on self exclusion is allowed to gamble, then it is an error on the casino itself. The gambler clearly couldn't help himself and wanted to limit his activities by filing for self exclusion and if the casino allows him to gamble regardless, then the casino isn't honest in its activities.

[Charles-Tim]

It is effective at least in some online casinos, such as Pokerstars and Pacific, for example.

The problem is that if you have a problem of self-control you have a lot of other casinos where you can play, so self-exclusion can help in a specific moment but if you have a big problem, or you think you are on the way to it, it is useless and you have to look for other ways of solution.

These are contradictory. While the first quote meant it is effective, the second quote is about how it is not effective. Anyone looking for self-exclusion on online gambling sites is only deceiving himself.

Self-exclusion comes from someone's mind and it is not about going for self-exclusion on the gambling site. It is about going for self-exclusion within your mind which will help you not to visit the gambling site.

I knew someone that went for self-exclusion for over a year and now he is still using the gambling site he visited the most. He was addicted at the time and knew he has to stop gambling. He stopped but later started to gamble after a yeat but infrequently and he has control over it now. This is what self-exclusion really is. He did not go for self-exclusion on the site.

[Ziskinberg]

Using self-exclusion features ironically suggests we're already losing control of our gambling habits. Let's be honest, these tools are practically useless for true addicts. With so many casinos now operating without KYC requirements, determined gamblers can always find another place to play.

When players blame casinos for not enforcing their self-exclusion, it almost paints the casino as the scammer which misses the point entirely. Casinos aren't rehabilitation centers. Responsible gambling starts with us, we need to understand our own actions and take accountability. If we're serious about overcoming addiction, the real solution isn't relying on casino safeguards but it's staying away from gambling altogether.

[acroman08]

I have never felt the need to use it, so no. As for whether it is effective, it is effective only as long as the gambler actually sticks to being "self-excluded" from the casino they are playing at, but as you know, if they want to gamble, they will find a way to gamble. Also, I just want to add that gambling addiction rehabs are also only as effective if the person who went there is determined to get their addiction under control.

[Ruttoshi]

Self exclusion features only helps a gambler that is ready to come out from addiction, because I believe that anyone going for this feature is already an addict. If the gambler is not ready to stop gambling and uses the self exclusion features, he is only wasting his time, because he will register with a new casino when the urge comes to feed his addiction.

I have never used self exclusion feature before, because the best way to stop gambling excessively or for a given periods of time, is to quit gambling entirely, and look for other sport to be occupied with.

[batang_bitcoin]

I’ve come across quite a few scam accusations where users claimed their accounts were under 'self-exclusion,' yet they still ended up gambling. There was even one user who complained about a casino allowing them to play despite being self-excluded. So, I’m curious...  how many of you actually use this feature to curb your gambling? Or is it not really effective, since determined gamblers can just switch to another casino?

When issues like this arise, and you don’t know the full story, what’s your first impression?

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

I don't really use this feature but if ever I want to stop gambling, it's all about my self control. I don't blame the casino if they self exclude me and yet I am allowed still to gamble. Why do I will try to gamble again if I know that they have self excluded me? I don't have to find someone to blame for because it's my urge and need to gamble. It won't makes sense if my mind tells me to stop but then my actions are reciprocal to the decision that I have made. If I've lost again, it is my problem and I should take myself into account, take that as my responsibility.

[Proty]

The feature is actually good to an extent morespecially for those gamblers that lack self control over there gambling habits however there are some users who will want to use this feature as a means of exploiting some casinos in the sense that after applying this feature and the casino is still allowing the user to bet and if they happen to lose money they will want to shift the blame to the casino since they are on self exclusion which means they are not suppose to be betting.

[Hispo]

I’ve come across quite a few scam accusations where users claimed their accounts were under 'self-exclusion,' yet they still ended up gambling. There was even one user who complained about a casino allowing them to play despite being self-excluded. So, I’m curious...  how many of you actually use this feature to curb your gambling? Or is it not really effective, since determined gamblers can just switch to another casino?

When issues like this arise, and you don’t know the full story, what’s your first impression?

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

Thankfully, I have never been in a situation in which I have found myself in the need to exclude myself from any casino, since I still hold control over my gambling habits.
Though, if I asked to be self-excluded and realized I can continue to gamble, then I would believe the casino is at fault for allowing me to continue to risk money and breaking their own policy of self-exclusion, not trying to protect those gamblers who are vulnerable to lose all their money they need to live daily and are aware they suffer from a problem.

I personally take self-exclusion very seriously when it is time for someone to opt for it, because it is one of the few tools problem gamblers have in order to try to improve their mental and economical situation, at least temporarily while they find professional help.

[TopTort777]

That self-exclusion option works really strange. It differs from casino to casino. In last few weeks I have faced either gambler got self-excluded, but still managed to gamble, other guy self-excluded himself for 30 days and were not able to access his account on 31st day (lol, what an overprotection:D).

I havent experienced the option of self-exclusion yet, but I dont think it is going to work. It might work for one offline casino, but the rest casinos in the city will still be available. As to such feature online - that is a joke. Few clicks and new account is ready. Feature is totally unreliable. So instead I would rather focus on mastering self-control.

[Stepstowealth]

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

The casino is a business, and while they may offer help to try assist you in trying to stop gambling, the only person that can really help you is yourself. And if you self exclude and then decide to come back and try gamble on the casino, who are you really fooling when you can exactly just gamble on another casino even if the casino you are trying to gamble on where you self excluded do not allow you gamble. Before hitting the self exclude feature on any casino you as an individual that have made the plan to want to stop gambling have to have come to a resolve for yourself that you really want to quit the habit. If you can really accept the reality of things and the fact that you want to stop the habit you may not even need the self exclude features from casinos for you to stop.

[Botnake]

If regulated casinos are required to include self-exclusion features, there's clearly a good reason for it. While it's ultimately the gambler's choice whether to use them, having these tools available is important. Personally, I consider myself fortunate that I've never reached the point of needing these options - I can still enjoy playing at different casinos without developing addiction issues. But for others, these features might be helpful... though likely ineffective for gamblers who have already lost control.

[hyudien]

how many of you actually use this feature to curb your gambling? Or is it not really effective, since determined gamblers can just switch to another casino?

I used this feature in one of my online casinos. I don't want to mention the name of the casino but I was fed up with them for almost 6 months. I made a deposit with a feeling, yes I'm curious. Crazy !! they suck and didn't give me a single win in that period. Yes I know probability games depend on luck, but compared to other casinos they are much worse, so I used the self-exclusion feature and I was able to forget my frustration, so this feature is effective for me to reduce the risk.

[maydna]

I never use self-exclusion feature but I can control myself. I know that is hard to control the temptation to continue gambling but I realize that is the must thing that I must do to avoid the big loss or gambling addiction.

The problem will be on the gamblers itself because if they realize that the self-exclusion feature is to prevent them from playing gambling, they must obey that as their rule to avoid gambling. They don't have to create another account just to fill their hunger of playing gambling because that will break their rules. But this is not be realized by them because gambling really tempting them to back to casino and gambling. Let them like that because we can not change them beside themselves.

[AbuBhakar]

I never use self-exclusion feature but I can control myself. I know that is hard to control the temptation to continue gambling but I realize that is the must thing that I must do to avoid the big loss or gambling addiction.

The problem will be on the gamblers itself because if they realize that the self-exclusion feature is to prevent them from playing gambling, they must obey that as their rule to avoid gambling. They don't have to create another account just to fill their hunger of playing gambling because that will break their rules. But this is not be realized by them because gambling really tempting them to back to casino and gambling. Let them like that because we can not change them beside themselves.

There’s a legit case which a person addiction is uncontrollable when they keep getting aware of gambling. We are lucky that we can control our gambling activity but for some it’s too hard now that it’s accessible easily online.


We can’t put the blame totally to players since there’s some cases that casino failed to self exclude an account or they keep sending gambling promotion to attract players to still play despite knowing that players has an addiction problem.

[Zlantann]

When issues like this arise, and you don’t know the full story, what’s your first impression?

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

In this case I give my full support to the gambler. If someone have considered his behaviour and discovered that what will help him e break free from gambling addiction is self exclusion. And he asked a casino to self exclude him, the casino is guilty of not abiding by self exclusion rules and should be held liable for any losses that come out their refusal to self exclude the gambler. The casino doesn't have any excuse not to exclude someone who willingly ask for it.