self-exclusion discussion

[Sandra_hakeem]

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.

But why was he still eager to play despite being self-excluded? He just wanted to see if the feature works? Well not for every casino. They make that with a loosed end on purpose, cause everything that happens in there don't really matter to them, as long as they make the money. They also wouldn't want to deliberately stop their means of income (in whichever way you understand it)

So, I’m curious...  how many of you actually use this feature to curb your gambling?

I haven't used this feature myself, but I can recall when it was used on a particular dude that usually shows up to our casino house 30 minutes after the official reopening for the day. He'll help with basic task like getting the plant's gas tank filled up, clean up etc... Just to be allowed to access a special system that he'll cling onto for the whole day. Wasn't too long until his friends and relatives officially made the request, which was granted without delay.

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

I don't take sides during/for/in gambling.

[Japinat]

That being said, a self-exclusion tool is just another tool that anyone can bypass (unless the casino forcibly disables the account without any recovery method or something similar). If someone is addicted, I don't think relying on that is enough to stop them from trying to gamble. I still think it's a nice feature to have. At least it will serve as another annoyance for someone to prevent them from playing recklessly.

I think that's fair. If you put your account under self-exclusion for one month, it means you can't gamble during that period, and the action can't be undone unless you contact support and they make an exception. The system is designed to help gamblers control their habits. That said, no gambler is ignorant enough to think that just because one casino has them in a self-exclusion state, they can't gamble elsewhere.

[stadus]

I think that's fair. If you put your account under self-exclusion for one month, it means you can't gamble during that period, and the action can't be undone unless you contact support and they make an exception. The system is designed to help gamblers control their habits. That said, no gambler is ignorant enough to think that just because one casino has them in a self-exclusion state, they can't gamble elsewhere.

I don't think support will reverse a self-exclusion request once activated. That button essentially functions as an emergency stop for problem gamblers - it's meant for critical situations when someone needs to block their access due to addiction. Contacting support to undo it defeats the entire purpose of having this protective measure in place.

[qwertyup23]

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?

This is an interesting point of discussion. Just for others to understand, some gambling companies offer the feature of self-exclusion where the gambling establishment would NOT allow you to gamble at their website/platform for a chosen period of time depending on the terms agreed upon. This feature is definitely helpful for others who want to control their gambling habits and keeping it at a minimum to avoid damage financially.

To answer your question, you are absolutely right about the points you raised. However, some gamblers specifically choose a gambling website due to the convenience of its UIs, easier communication with other people, etc. There are lots of factors on why some gamblers would want to gamble at a specific gambling website.

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?

For problems like these, when in doubt regarding the facts raised, I tend to side more with the person given that gambling companies are giants within their own field. Also, they have the discretion whether to allow or deny specific users in accessing their platform.

[Botnake]

For problems like these, when in doubt regarding the facts raised, I tend to side more with the person given that gambling companies are giants within their own field. Also, they have the discretion whether to allow or deny specific users in accessing their platform.

It really depends on the user and how they present their evidence. These days, we're seeing many newbies who post indiscriminately just to damage casinos' reputations. Personally, my first instinct is to side with the casino  especially if they've built a solid reputation and have been operating successfully for years.

[gunhell16]

Self-exclusion is a great help for gamblers who are struggling with their gambling habits or addictions. If a gambler's condition is really bad and they can no longer control themselves properly
or normally, it is best to do this because it is for gamblers

But for gamblers who gamble responsibly, it is not necessary, because they have the capability to control themselves and there is no addiction that has developed in their character.
In short, it is suitable for addicted gamblers who have no control over themselves.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Self exclusion is more effective when you take the strong decision yourself not to gamble for a certain set period of time but if you go with the self exclusion features on the casino, that may not even prevent you from gambling anytime you want because even if the casino doesn't allow you to gamble because of the feature, you can easily slide into another casino to gamble. Before I side anybody in such a situation, I have to get the full story first to be able to understand who is at fault there. Some gamblers causes the problem for themselves.

[bubilas]

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 think this is a controversial topic for online casinos themselves. After all, if a gambler or betting player arbitrarily adds himself to the casino's lists to block access to games, then everything is simple.

But casinos should not really like adding players to such lists, and this is due to the fact that then gamblers will simply go to another casino when they realize that they want to play again.
 They are unlikely to bother with requests for unblocking. And in this way, the casino will lose all players because of such a list. Therefore, I think that many casinos simply do not provide such a service.

[mirakal]

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.

Self-exclusion will certainly make sense if you instill discipline on part of you as a gambler. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourself trying to exclude from a gambling site, yet you allow yourself to explore the other sites and continue gambling. Self-exclusion is good and effective if you apply it in yourself, not on the gambling site alone.

[Lanatsa]

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 think this is a controversial topic for online casinos themselves. After all, if a gambler or betting player arbitrarily adds himself to the casino's lists to block access to games, then everything is simple.

But casinos should not really like adding players to such lists, and this is due to the fact that then gamblers will simply go to another casino when they realize that they want to play again.
 They are unlikely to bother with requests for unblocking. And in this way, the casino will lose all players because of such a list. Therefore, I think that many casinos simply do not provide such a service.

Actually the same thing that runs up into my mind on how the heck the would be just that easily let those gamblers who do ask for some exclusions to be listed or being blocked by the site? For sure they will be that thinking that if they will be doing that then it will be a potential loss of customer/player on which this will be that not good for the business. Self exclusions features might be that helpful on which a certain player could be blocked but just like been said that they might be that going into other site or platform if they would be that wanting to play again on which this will be definitely the case. Therefore, they wont be that granting all the time or they might not be granting at all if there are some exclusions request and waiting up for these gamblers to bust up all of their balances and keep on the same mistakes all over again and again.We do know on what this means on which thats more profit for them.

Somehow these platforms do really give out some gambling precautions about possible addiction but actually these are just that turned out to be showing off that they do care but deep inside they do want for all of their gamblers to become addicted and make tons of revenue or profits. 

[uneng]

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?

My first impression is that degenerated gamblers will do anything in order to continue gambling. They can indeed just switch to another platforms to bypass self exclusion in a determined casino, or they can create multiple accounts on the same casino they have self excluded themselves.

I've already seen gamblers doing that and blaming the casino in the end for not having excluded their side accounts, in an attempt to play the victim and potentially earn a reimburse.

After all, this feature isn't really efficient, unless the gambler is fully committed in overcoming the addiction.

[yahoo62278]

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?

The option to self exclude yourself is supposed to be there to help you limit yourself from losing the house obviously, but gamblers are going to gamble even if they self exclude. They'll make a new account, they'll go to another casino, they'll do whatever they have to to gamble.

If you are this type, you just need to get thrown in jail for a year and not be able to access a computer. At least then you will not be able to feed the addiction.

Now, sites that have self exclusion that doesn't work is another issue. If a player self excludes and the site doesn't stop them(on that account at least as they cannot always detect an alt), then the site is at fault for faulty programming IMO.

[Numeral]

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 believe that if this function is there and it is used by users, then the online casino should provide this function fully, and not theoretically or provide incorrectly functioning. If the casino fulfills all the stated obligations, then this shows its professionalism, says that all processes within the casino's activities are clearly configured and working. And if the casino says that we have such a function, but in fact it does not provide it, then this is a clear signal of negligent attitude to customers.

As for the transition of the user to another casino if there is a limit - in any case, at the moment when his limit is triggered, he stopped playing, part of the users will be enough to stop at once. Therefore, this option is in any case effective and it would not exist in principle, if it was just a game of words. It does save someone.

[Cointxz]

For problems like these, when in doubt regarding the facts raised, I tend to side more with the person given that gambling companies are giants within their own field. Also, they have the discretion whether to allow or deny specific users in accessing their platform.

It really depends on the user and how they present their evidence. These days, we're seeing many newbies who post indiscriminately just to damage casinos' reputations. Personally, my first instinct is to side with the casino  especially if they've built a solid reputation and have been operating successfully for years.

Yes, It’s always case to case basis. Recently, there some scam accusation was made related to scam accusations but the evidence is not solid that casino is at fault because users are blaming the casino after they lose their money by still playing on the casino using different account while their main account is already self exclude by playing.

They are claiming that casino should stop any attempt from them despite there’s no way to fully stop them unless casino will enforce mandatory KYC during the registration of the account.

[bitgolden]

I think the self-exclusion feature is never useful for people to reduce their gambling activities because if someone thinks they are getting addicted to gambling and the urge to gamble keeps increasing over time, they can always use another platform for gambling even if they have self-excluded themselves from one because there are no restrictions on that and we can see how many platforms are now available for gamblers that they can use and one would never create accounts in all the platforms and then use the self-exclusion feature.

So, I don't know why people even use this feature when it doesn't help much. Those who can't stay patient and have control over their emotions can't be helped this way and they need assistance from a third person who will try to keep them away from gambling some way or let them have no access to their funds unless they ask for it for something else.

[michellee]

Self exclusion will only work if gamblers really want to limit their gambling habit so they don't have to spend too much money. But those who often playing gambling may difficult to use this feature because their mind will tell them to back to casino and continue playing gambling. That can make them spend more money without any guarantee winning in gambling.

Gamblers can switch to another casino easily if they use self exclusion feature on a casino. They can back to playing gambling without think about their limitation. That is why gamblers must know how to use the limitation and really hold themselves for playing gambling aggressively.

[TravelMug]

Self exclusion will only work if gamblers really want to limit their gambling habit so they don't have to spend too much money. But those who often playing gambling may difficult to use this feature because their mind will tell them to back to casino and continue playing gambling. That can make them spend more money without any guarantee winning in gambling.

Right, the gamblers has the responsibility that they won't go back to gambling because they have excluded themselves already. So I don't understand that we need to test the casinos and play again and then blame them later for allowing you when you should be excluded already.

Gamblers can switch to another casino easily if they use self exclusion feature on a casino. They can back to playing gambling without think about their limitation. That is why gamblers must know how to use the limitation and really hold themselves for playing gambling aggressively.

That is the thing, with so many casino's right now, even if we say that we are done with one casino. Sooner or later when we feel that itch that we need to scratch, we might go back and play again on a new casino or a casino that we have known already. So it's going to be cyclical even if we asked to be excluded on just one casino itself.

[Wexnident]

~

Not exactly self exclusion in casinos but I have asked a site to block off my account and IP from accessing them. They seem to had the security in place so they willingly did so. Guess what I did? Bypassed it lol. Imo at the end of the day the best exclusion method is for you yourself to stop. Casinos at the end of the day will help you but they can't 100% control how you act so you can still actually play by the end.

It starts with you. Doesn't have to tackle it alone as well, you can probably ask for help from friends/family to stop you from doing/playing. Also helps to be aware of methods to actually stop addiction, e.g. doing it slowly

[Sanitough]

~

Not exactly self exclusion in casinos but I have asked a site to block off my account and IP from accessing them. They seem to had the security in place so they willingly did so. Guess what I did? Bypassed it lol. Imo at the end of the day the best exclusion method is for you yourself to stop. Casinos at the end of the day will help you but they can't 100% control how you act so you can still actually play by the end.

It starts with you. Doesn't have to tackle it alone as well, you can probably ask for help from friends/family to stop you from doing/playing. Also helps to be aware of methods to actually stop addiction, e.g. doing it slowly

LOL, man, I totally get where you’re coming from. I’ve been there too, trying to quit gambling but constantly fighting myself. The hardest opponent is your own mind, right? When we’re not honest with ourselves, we’ll still find stupid ways to keep playing. Your situation sounds even tougher, but props to those gambling sites that actually honored your IP block request. Though let’s be real… in the end, we were just fooling ourselves. 

[Pmalek]

I look at self-exclusion as hiding sweets and chips from yourself because you know you shouldn't eat them, while knowing exactly where they are and how to get to them. A person who wants to stop gambling just stops gambling. That's it. The same people who self-exclude at casino A probably have accounts on casinos B and C where they also play or alternative accounts on casino A. And let's not kid ourselves, the only reason self-excluded players complain is because they lost their money. Now, they want it back to be able to play again. Had they won while being self-excluded, there wouldn't be any complaints.