self-exclusion discussion

[Alpha Marine]

Do you side with the gambler or the casino?

I usually won't side with anyone because you don't know if the user is telling the truth or not. I have never used the self-exclusion feature in casinos, but I've used something similar to other apps on my phone when I spend too much time in them and it makes me not productive, like movie streaming apps and most times, unless I turn off that feature they wont let me access it for the time when its meant to be restricted.
So it's difficult to believe that a user activated the self-exclusion feature, yet the casino still allowed them to gamble. Different kinds of accusations are thrown around daily, and a lot of them are false, but it's difficult to pick sides when you don't know the whole story.

[moneystery]

if there is a gambler who decides to 'self-exclude' but still gambles in the end, it means that he is unable to control himself not to gamble... because no matter what the gambler does, if he cannot control himself not to gamble, he will find various ways to be able to gamble.. can be by using other people's data and registering on other sites to play.

but i just heard that there is a site that allows players to play despite being self-excluded, doesn't this feature prohibit players from accessing gambling services, but they still allow it, isn't that just ridiculous? so what's the point of the self-exclusion feature on the website if they allow users to continue playing even though they are in a self-excluded condition.

[aioc]

I have read a lot of complaints about self-inclusion, and what I noticed is they complain to the casino too late of implementing the self exclusion whenever they lose but if they win, you will not hear from them.
Self-inclusion is being abused by many casinos players; in my opinion, self-inclusion should start with the player first and not rely on the casino's self-exclusion features.
I have not used and will not use this casino in particular because I am totally in control of how and when I should play, and this should be the case for all casinos. Control how you play, and you are good to go.

[alegotardo]

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 never used the self-exclusion feature, but I understand how important it is for those struggling with gambling addiction and I find it quite worrying to hear that some casinos allow self-excluded players to continue playing, as this can be detrimental to their mental and financial health.

In cases like these, I always support the gambler as I believe that casinos have a responsibility to protect their customers and ensure that they play responsibly... so if a player has self-excluded it is because they recognize that they need help and are trying to protect themselves and so it is essential that casinos respect this decision and do not allow the player to continue playing.

I understand that self-exclusion is not a foolproof solution and that determined players can find ways around it, but this does not absolve casinos of their obligation and I think that they should actually go further, working with other casinos to ensure that the self-exclusion requirement is replicated at as many casinos as possible to be effective and truly protect vulnerable players.

[Julien_Olynpic]

The self-exclusion feature is basically pointless because the addicted gambler will always have a choice in the form of a variety of alternatives. If you exclude yourself from playing at one casino, you can always try playing at another casino. The only exception is if you have a favorite casino or sports betting site that you like more than others. But this is rare, because now the sites are similar. The only thing better than self-exclusion is sufficient self-control. Unfortunately, addicted gamblers have problems with this.

[seoincorporation]

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?

If someone self-exclude from the casino he shouldn't be able to gamble. And anyone who make that move should withdrawal all his balance before taking that action. I'm not sure how casinos works with that feature but just as OP mentioned i have read users threads complaining about this too.

And the fact that someone can just go to another casino to gamble while he is self exclude from one, then that make the feature lose all the sense, that will not stop a gambler from betting.

[Darker45]

I've read a somewhat similar story here in the past. It's ironic how gamblers want to be self-excluded from their platforms but are attempting to gamble on the same platform. I thought they wanted self-exclusion because they want to avoid gambling?

The complaint I read here was of a gambler who opted for self-exclusion for a certain timeframe. Within the timeframe he attempted to log on and play. He was able to do that. He ended up losing his balance. He came here crying for a refund from the casino because he's supposed to be barred from playing. He demanded answers from the casino why he was allowed to gamble within the self-exclusion period. While he got a point, I don't think he deserves to be refunded or sympathized.

I haven't tried using this self-exclusion feature, but I don't think it's effective. However, casinos should activate it just the same once a gambler asks for it. It's part of their service.

[TheUltraElite]

Before self-exclusion, sometimes casinos would get threats from players that the casino was responsible for their losses because they kept running shop. The casinos understood the situation and responded with a diplomatic stance, start self-exclusion. A system that seems to police the bad habits but in reality does not actually function, like putting a band aid on a gaping wound.

The decision to not play should come from the player not the casino. Some casinos take it seriously that they stop allowing any accounts from that user. Even then there are methods to curb this - which leads to the question - is self-exclusion just a buzzword to run the casinos business without questions only?

[Koadharber]

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?

If someone self-exclude from the casino he shouldn't be able to gamble. And anyone who make that move should withdrawal all his balance before taking that action. I'm not sure how casinos works with that feature but just as OP mentioned i have read users threads complaining about this too.

And the fact that someone can just go to another casino to gamble while he is self exclude from one, then that make the feature lose all the sense, that will not stop a gambler from betting.

On the moment or time that you do consider out on making some self exclusion then of course you will be trying out yourself to withdraw all the funds that you do have left before you do request for self exclusion.
On the moment that you do have such request then for sure the team will be that asking out or making out some reminders that you should be withdraw the balance before they do make out such step. I havent been able to experience about self exclusions but pretty sure that his was the most ethical way or things that they would do rather than on locking up the account directly without telling or making up warnings of the said gambler. Exclusion would be totally useless if you itself wont be able to have that seriousness on quitting up gambling for good. Addiction is something that you wont be able to a notice it out not unless you have suffered financial loss that it cant be ignored.

[jcojci]

The self-exclusion feature is basically pointless because the addicted gambler will always have a choice in the form of a variety of alternatives. If you exclude yourself from playing at one casino, you can always try playing at another casino. The only exception is if you have a favorite casino or sports betting site that you like more than others. But this is rare, because now the sites are similar. The only thing better than self-exclusion is sufficient self-control. Unfortunately, addicted gamblers have problems with this.

They will not stop from self-exclusion they already set before because they still want to playing gambling in the other days and will back to the casino. We can use self-exclusion only when we really want to limit our gambling activity and do not want to get deeper in gambling. But if our minds can not leave gambling and can not make ourselves busy, there will be a chance for us to continue playing gambling. We will forget our self-exclusion in the casino before because we have many casinos in our list so we can go to that casino. However, self control will help us to prevent the wanting of playing gambling whether we are addicted to gambling or just ordinary gambler.

[sunsilk]

I side with both of them, I don't use that feature because I am still in control but others that are not in control for themselves might just blame the casino for having this feature.

It's always best to know the both sides so that we can have the idea on who's at fault and who's not. Sometimes the casinos also do have their own fault and honest mistakes and the same goes for us, the gamblers.

But if it's too much, we as the gamblers need to be responsible at all times with every action we make. From deposits, to withdrawals and into self exclusions.

[iv4n]

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'm not a fan of this feature. Simply put, self-exclusion can be circumvented in many ways, and of course, there will be some people who will try to abuse it.

It's not wise to take anyone's side until we've heard all the information (or at least all that's available to us). And how someone presents that information will determine first impressions.

I think this is the right topic for this situation. I came across this a few days ago, a really strange situation:

I don't want to name the casino, but a gambler deposited funds after having two self-excluded accounts. He won $150K, yet $100K was confiscated for breaching TOS by playing while self-excluded. Since self-exclusion is meant to protect players, not conveniently benefit casinos, who’s in the wrong here?

Source - https://x.com/GamdomHowly/status/1906366981600682298

One of the strangest & craziest stories on the subject of self-exclusion...

[madnessteat]

I never understood the self-exclusion feature in casinos so I never used it. I think in such a function too many disadvantages that do not allow you to fully restrict the user from gambling when he really wants it. In my opinion, there is nothing better than self-control and to acquire it you need to work very hard on yourself. If a person does not have a sufficient level of self-control to withdraw from gambling when the situation requires it, it is better to stay away from this kind of entertainment. After all, with a strong desire to gamble, I always know where I can borrow money and play gambling on a platform that does not have this function. You can not fool yourself, so it is better to work on yourself than to think who is to blame the user or the casino that allowed the user to gamble even if he set a self-exclusion.

[bakasabo]

I never understood the self-exclusion feature in casinos so I never used it. I think in such a function too many disadvantages that do not allow you to fully restrict the user from gambling when he really wants it. In my opinion, there is nothing better than self-control and to acquire it you need to work very hard on yourself. If a person does not have a sufficient level of self-control to withdraw from gambling when the situation requires it, it is better to stay away from this kind of entertainment. After all, with a strong desire to gamble, I always know where I can borrow money and play gambling on a platform that does not have this function. You can not fool yourself, so it is better to work on yourself than to think who is to blame the user or the casino that allowed the user to gamble even if he set a self-exclusion.

I think the idea of self-exclusion feature is not about really pausing one persons gambling, because effectiveness of this feature is questionable, but it is more sort of a first step to stop developing addiction. Gamblers understand there is problem, but can't get his thoughts together, doesn't have the courage to quit, doesn't know how to help himself. So he starts with a tiny step of exclusion, hoping that that action will trigger his brain to reconfigure. Self-exclusion is a push for recovery. Gambler dont expect much from it, but at least that is a start.

[madnessteat]

^

In my opinion, this is not the first step to get rid of gambling addiction, but an illusion that is destroyed in a matter of minutes and rather shows the gambling addict that he is very weak before his temptations.

I believe that the first step in the fight against any addiction is to realize that it began to bring problems. The second step is to completely give up what is causing the addiction. It is not so important how many times the addicted person will return to what causes addiction, it is important not to stop and try again and again because only desire and work on yourself can lead to success.

[Yaunfitda]

^

In my opinion, this is not the first step to get rid of gambling addiction, but an illusion that is destroyed in a matter of minutes and rather shows the gambling addict that he is very weak before his temptations.

I believe that the first step in the fight against any addiction is to realize that it began to bring problems. The second step is to completely give up what is causing the addiction. It is not so important how many times the addicted person will return to what causes addiction, it is important not to stop and try again and again because only desire and work on yourself can lead to success.

Or just the admittance that you are a gambling addict and that there should be steps to follow moving forward if you want to cure yourself of the addiction. So self-exclusion could be one of those process and then after that maybe you need to talk to professionals about your gambling addiction and maybe you need to go to rehab and reset everything and put yourself in ways that you really will forget about gambling itself. It's only a illusion of the gamblers comes back after excluding himself, meaning he is not that really into stopping as he want to test the casino and obviously, they will fall for the trap again and again.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

if there is a gambler who decides to 'self-exclude' but still gambles in the end, it means that he is unable to control himself not to gamble... because no matter what the gambler does, if he cannot control himself not to gamble, he will find various ways to be able to gamble.. can be by using other people's data and registering on other sites to play.

but i just heard that there is a site that allows players to play despite being self-excluded, doesn't this feature prohibit players from accessing gambling services, but they still allow it, isn't that just ridiculous? so what's the point of the self-exclusion feature on the website if they allow users to continue playing even though they are in a self-excluded condition.

It's really lack of self control and addiction that would make it difficult for a gambler not to be able to stay away from gambling for the number of days, weeks or months that they wanted to, even if they are not able to access the online casino, they would go to a land based casino to go and gamble, such people do not need to blame the casino but also blame themselves for being so compulsive.

[Smartprofit]

I have never used the "self-exclusion" function when playing in an online casino.

In my youth, I developed a gambling addiction (at that time I played roulette in an offline casino very passionately). However, I managed to overcome my gambling addiction. I used a clever psychological trick - I replaced one addiction with another.

Now I ask myself - could I cure myself of gambling addiction using an analogue of the "self-exclusion" function? In my opinion, the answer is no.

Gambling addiction is like madness, like an obsession. It would not stop me - I would still gamble. Maybe not in this casino, but in another, but in any case, I would play roulette.

Therefore, I consider the use of the "self-exclusion" function absolutely pointless. At the same time, if such a function is still present in an online casino and a player used it, then, in my opinion, the casino should not allow the player to gamble.

[YOSHIE]

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

There are several categories about exceptions to users in the game.
• The user himself made a mistake so that their account was excluded and still complained but the game was still played in the casino.
• Users are indeed real in betting the casino excluded it and complained.

In this case both of them are not effective, the casino feels disadvantaged and the user is the case too, well for me if there has been a good feature that is good to use at the casino, switching to another casino.

Other exceptions they still remain or leave bonuses, with these bonuses they do the game and win, that's where the mind arises to remain in the casino and other reasons for the exception.

[348Judah]

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?

We have been found in many ways to make a conclusion over something we said not to do again but later at the cause of the day still finds ourselves going back to doing the same thing which we have already crossed the line over, this shows a way of human weakness in making decisions and the way we could be so used to something that we may finds it difficult not to do each time we have the opportunity for doing it, this is just the simple interpretation i may give on this, because gambling is so fun to do and we may not want to leave a day without having its experience despite what we might have said early.