Do you think casinos should be able to cap max wins based on their bankroll size

[DabsPoorVersion]

Since everyone are so smart, explain me please such moment. Cap max win is done to decrease casino risk to go bankrupt. Then why in the same game and round, I can bet only 999 bucks but someone can bet more than my max? How my max 999 bet is more risky than bigger bet?

It is not about smart or not, it is a common information that can be seen in almost all casino in this crypto gambling industry where all casinos set their max win limit based on their bankroll. Your example need more detail because looking at the bet amount only is not enough. Simple example, a casino set max win limit per single bet is $50k. In this case you place a bet on dice game with $1000 but you try to chase 100x, this bet wont be allowed by the system in the casino. On ther side, other players can bet $100k in the same game but they chase for 1.5x payout only.

If I may add, aside from the possibility of having a huge difference in multiplier, it's also possible that the crypto casino differentiates the account limits depending on VIP levels, it could also because of game specific rules, or possibly depends on the casino's exposure calculations. It all depends on the casino as they may also set a maximum win limit separate from the player's maximum stake limit.

[TopTort777]

Since everyone are so smart, explain me please such moment. Cap max win is done to decrease casino risk to go bankrupt. Then why in the same game and round, I can bet only 999 bucks but someone can bet more than my max? How my max 999 bet is more risky than bigger bet?

It is not about smart or not, it is a common information that can be seen in almost all casino in this crypto gambling industry where all casinos set their max win limit based on their bankroll. Your example need more detail because looking at the bet amount only is not enough. Simple example, a casino set max win limit per single bet is $50k. In this case you place a bet on dice game with $1000 but you try to chase 100x, this bet wont be allowed by the system in the casino. On ther side, other players can bet $100k in the same game but they chase for 1.5x payout only.

I cant recall 100% clear my case, but once I have deposited 2-3k bucks and wanted to play crash all-in few low odds rounds. No matter what were my "cashout at" settings, I was only able to max bet 999 bucks. In the game settings it was mentioned that max bet is 7k and max payout 100k for regular player. VIP players can bet 21k and win 300k max. I dont know these limits are useful and if they really work, if the game can play at once unlimited amount of players. Wild theory, but lets imagine that 1000 players won 300k each at once. Does not look like bankrupt risk strategy works effectively, if there is no limit of how many players can play at once.

Maybe what you have written applies to sports betting. I went to random casino, searched sports betting rules, but I haven found any limits on max wins or max bet. There only limits on bet boosters.

[EarnOnVictor]

Do you think that actually restricting wins based on bankroll is reasonable business practice or do you think that it goes too far and becomes anti-player?

The right question you should be asking: how would I feel if my winning is too big for my casino to pay?

I've seen people challenging casinos' limit on the wager amount; thinking it's anti-gambler, but in reality, it is for the best interest of both casinos and gamblers. This is fair since the casino understands their internal financial risk management than you, and I believe they are structuring that regularly in relation to their inflow and outflow (liquidity). This guarantees their readiness to pay whatever winning of a particular bet and also safe their heads from insolvency.

Imagine a very rich guy won so big and the casino was unable to pay because they don't have the money, and such a casino was drag to court and the judgement was deliver against the entire casino, thereby forfeiting their assets or part of it to the petitioner?

[purple_sparkles]

Do you think that actually restricting wins based on bankroll is reasonable business practice or do you think that it goes too far and becomes anti-player?

The right question you should be asking: how would I feel if my winning is too big for my casino to pay?

I've seen people challenging casinos' limit on the wager amount; thinking it's anti-gambler, but in reality, it is for the best interest of both casinos and gamblers. This is fair since the casino understands their internal financial risk management than you, and I believe they are structuring that regularly in relation to their inflow and outflow (liquidity). This guarantees their readiness to pay whatever winning of a particular bet and also safe their heads from insolvency.

Imagine a very rich guy won so big and the casino was unable to pay because they don't have the money, and such a casino was drag to court and the judgement was deliver against the entire casino, thereby forfeiting their assets or part of it to the petitioner?

I think that nowadays, as everything is moving into the digital world and we're mostly talking about online casinos rather than land-based ones, all of these situations are already taken into account by the software. The program already includes all the algorithms needed to make the casino a profitable business. Even the possibility of a large jackpot win is built into the overall algorithm.

[Crytohillss]

Since everyone are so smart, explain me please such moment. Cap max win is done to decrease casino risk to go bankrupt. Then why in the same game and round, I can bet only 999 bucks but someone can bet more than my max? How my max 999 bet is more risky than bigger bet?

It is not about smart or not, it is a common information that can be seen in almost all casino in this crypto gambling industry where all casinos set their max win limit based on their bankroll. Your example need more detail because looking at the bet amount only is not enough. Simple example, a casino set max win limit per single bet is $50k. In this case you place a bet on dice game with $1000 but you try to chase 100x, this bet wont be allowed by the system in the casino. On ther side, other players can bet $100k in the same game but they chase for 1.5x payout only.

I cant recall 100% clear my case, but once I have deposited 2-3k bucks and wanted to play crash all-in few low odds rounds. No matter what were my "cashout at" settings, I was only able to max bet 999 bucks. In the game settings it was mentioned that max bet is 7k and max payout 100k for regular player. VIP players can bet 21k and win 300k max. I dont know these limits are useful and if they really work, if the game can play at once unlimited amount of players. Wild theory, but lets imagine that 1000 players won 300k each at once. Does not look like bankrupt risk strategy works effectively, if there is no limit of how many players can play at once.

Maybe what you have written applies to sports betting. I went to random casino, searched sports betting rules, but I haven found any limits on max wins or max bet. There only limits on bet boosters.

I think it sounds like the posted limit and the actual betting limits aren't always the same, my guess is that the advertised max bet is more of a theoretical cap while the amount one are actually allowed to wager can depend on factors likeone account the game, one balance or the caino's risk control as for the scenario where hundred of players all win big amount that risk through game math, liquidity and internal limits ratht than depending on a cap on the number of players.

[bitLeap]

Do you mean that casinos limit gamblers' maximum winnings due to their limited capital? If that's what you mean, I think it's a normal business practice, as long as the casino manages everything perfectly. I mean, don't let casinos impose win limits on gamblers, because otherwise, the casino's reputation will suffer due to its inability to pay out winnings.

In fact, any casino that imposes limits demonstrates that it operates with great caution and careful calculation. By setting betting limits, a casino ensures its bankroll is sufficient to cover potential payouts. Allowing gamblers to bet without limits could jeopardize the casino if winnings were to exceed its capacity to pay.

[nara1892]

Do you mean that casinos limit gamblers' maximum winnings due to their limited capital? If that's what you mean, I think it's a normal business practice, as long as the casino manages everything perfectly. I mean, don't let casinos impose win limits on gamblers, because otherwise, the casino's reputation will suffer due to its inability to pay out winnings.

In fact, any casino that imposes limits demonstrates that it operates with great caution and careful calculation. By setting betting limits, a casino ensures its bankroll is sufficient to cover potential payouts. Allowing gamblers to bet without limits could jeopardize the casino if winnings were to exceed its capacity to pay.

That's what I mean. Operating with minimal capital but not imposing a win limit on each user can harm the casino itself, especially its reputation. I personally played at a local casino in my country. I was a new player there, and at the same time, a lucky streak occurred, causing my account balance to grow to more than 20 times my initial capital. However, they didn't pay it out, claiming "the withdrawal process was experiencing problems." Even though I didn't do anything wrong, they still haven't paid it out.

I don't know if the casino didn't have enough capital to pay out winnings or if there was another reason, but believe me, any form of withdrawal disruption can damage a casino's reputation. I left a bad review there, which may have deterred other gamblers from playing at that casino.

[TopTort777]

Since everyone are so smart, explain me please such moment. Cap max win is done to decrease casino risk to go bankrupt. Then why in the same game and round, I can bet only 999 bucks but someone can bet more than my max? How my max 999 bet is more risky than bigger bet?

It is not about smart or not, it is a common information that can be seen in almost all casino in this crypto gambling industry where all casinos set their max win limit based on their bankroll. Your example need more detail because looking at the bet amount only is not enough. Simple example, a casino set max win limit per single bet is $50k. In this case you place a bet on dice game with $1000 but you try to chase 100x, this bet wont be allowed by the system in the casino. On ther side, other players can bet $100k in the same game but they chase for 1.5x payout only.

I cant recall 100% clear my case, but once I have deposited 2-3k bucks and wanted to play crash all-in few low odds rounds. No matter what were my "cashout at" settings, I was only able to max bet 999 bucks. In the game settings it was mentioned that max bet is 7k and max payout 100k for regular player. VIP players can bet 21k and win 300k max. I dont know these limits are useful and if they really work, if the game can play at once unlimited amount of players. Wild theory, but lets imagine that 1000 players won 300k each at once. Does not look like bankrupt risk strategy works effectively, if there is no limit of how many players can play at once.

Maybe what you have written applies to sports betting. I went to random casino, searched sports betting rules, but I haven found any limits on max wins or max bet. There only limits on bet boosters.

I think it sounds like the posted limit and the actual betting limits aren't always the same, my guess is that the advertised max bet is more of a theoretical cap while the amount one are actually allowed to wager can depend on factors likeone account the game, one balance or the caino's risk control as for the scenario where hundred of players all win big amount that risk through game math, liquidity and internal limits ratht than depending on a cap on the number of players.

Anyway, I dont see how this max cap actually work. It is a my max bet amount that casino calculate they can repay me and avoid going bankrupt. 
How this is working if they can predict how many bets are going to be made next second? Casino has some balance they can pay out without going bankrupt. Do you think before any bet in casino is made, they do calculations and spread that balance among all the bettors? This max win cap must be working all the time and calculations must be done non-stop, it must be adjusted by all bets done. Otherwise they are not protected from going bankrupt if everyone makes a bet at the same time and win.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Anyway, I dont see how this max cap actually work. It is a my max bet amount that casino calculate they can repay me and avoid going bankrupt. 
How this is working if they can predict how many bets are going to be made next second?

They don't. It's much more complex than that.

Casino has some balance they can pay out without going bankrupt. Do you think before any bet in casino is made, they do calculations and spread that balance among all the bettors? This max win cap must be working all the time and calculations must be done non-stop, it must be adjusted by all bets done. Otherwise they are not protected from going bankrupt if everyone makes a bet at the same time and win.

Casinos use the Law of Large Numbers and Risk of Ruin Models. They also have to have reserves to pay out maximum wins in unlikely unfavorable scenarios, usually required by regulations. 

I've already explained to you in this same thread that the casino doesn't limit you personally; what it does is limit bets based on your bankroll and risk management, but you just keep harping on the same thing.

[drangos]

Do you mean that casinos limit gamblers' maximum winnings due to their limited capital? If that's what you mean, I think it's a normal business practice, as long as the casino manages everything perfectly. I mean, don't let casinos impose win limits on gamblers, because otherwise, the casino's reputation will suffer due to its inability to pay out winnings.

In fact, any casino that imposes limits demonstrates that it operates with great caution and careful calculation. By setting betting limits, a casino ensures its bankroll is sufficient to cover potential payouts. Allowing gamblers to bet without limits could jeopardize the casino if winnings were to exceed its capacity to pay.

That's what I mean. Operating with minimal capital but not imposing a win limit on each user can harm the casino itself, especially its reputation. I personally played at a local casino in my country. I was a new player there, and at the same time, a lucky streak occurred, causing my account balance to grow to more than 20 times my initial capital. However, they didn't pay it out, claiming "the withdrawal process was experiencing problems." Even though I didn't do anything wrong, they still haven't paid it out.

I don't know if the casino didn't have enough capital to pay out winnings or if there was another reason, but believe me, any form of withdrawal disruption can damage a casino's reputation. I left a bad review there, which may have deterred other gamblers from playing at that casino.

Never does a casino have betting limits that it can't afford to pay for. When the bankroll is limited, it is better to start out with sensible max bets and max wins rather than taking any bets that are too big and withholding payments later to the winners. The difficulty here is being able to see through. Excessively restricting a player is okay when they are aware of the restriction prior to playing. But excuses such as withdrawals due to the winner are a significant warning sign. Having a legitimate win and being paid on time is crucial. Otherwise trust goes out the window very quickly.

[swogerino]

Do you mean that casinos limit gamblers' maximum winnings due to their limited capital? If that's what you mean, I think it's a normal business practice, as long as the casino manages everything perfectly. I mean, don't let casinos impose win limits on gamblers, because otherwise, the casino's reputation will suffer due to its inability to pay out winnings.

In fact, any casino that imposes limits demonstrates that it operates with great caution and careful calculation. By setting betting limits, a casino ensures its bankroll is sufficient to cover potential payouts. Allowing gamblers to bet without limits could jeopardize the casino if winnings were to exceed its capacity to pay.

That's what I mean. Operating with minimal capital but not imposing a win limit on each user can harm the casino itself, especially its reputation. I personally played at a local casino in my country. I was a new player there, and at the same time, a lucky streak occurred, causing my account balance to grow to more than 20 times my initial capital. However, they didn't pay it out, claiming "the withdrawal process was experiencing problems." Even though I didn't do anything wrong, they still haven't paid it out.

I don't know if the casino didn't have enough capital to pay out winnings or if there was another reason, but believe me, any form of withdrawal disruption can damage a casino's reputation. I left a bad review there, which may have deterred other gamblers from playing at that casino.

Casinos who are real and committed to a successful journey and profitable business for them make sure their initial operating capital can cover not just one huge win but many whale wins in a row. They don't care if someone wins big and they pay him after auditing he has not cheated the casino adding to good reviews for them. Casinos who cannot process withdrawals fast enough and come up with different reasons as why they do so won't go far and are destined to fail. As I said real established casinos do not care how much one person wins as they are prepared for any scenario.

[leea-1334]

Casinos use the Law of Large Numbers and Risk of Ruin Models. They also have to have reserves to pay out maximum wins in unlikely unfavorable scenarios, usually required by regulations. 

I've already explained to you in this same thread that the casino doesn't limit you personally; what it does is limit bets based on your bankroll and risk management, but you just keep harping on the same thing.

Welcome to gambling thread,,, a lot of users do not know how things work, and a lot of them even if you explain do not get it

I do have to say one thing though that in principle you are right on reserves but in some cases, the payout in some areas belong to the provider not the casino, the case I am thinking of is slots group or progressive jackpot, where every bet on the same slots, all across different casinos, contribute to the jackpot. That fund is in provider's care. And its not a reserve, just a pot.

Also,,, these days with casinos even outsourcing sportsbooks like Betby, where all different casinos leave the player profiling to Betby, there is also a growing case that a person can be limited on his identity. I do not know for sure if this is already happening but I read a few times now on forum a new player at a new casino instantly got limited or restricted, supposedly because they were limited by Betby on another casino.

[Ronsbit]

I see this as a means of trying to put players under check so that they don't gamble excess. This measures is mostly good for disciplined players who knows what they are doing. I have also encountered many casinos with a maximum deposit per day which is not much and for the first time I am getting to know about this OP has said here because I have been wondering why some casinos would set maximum deposit and also sometimes set max amount per game a player could play per day.

This measures possibly has to do with licensing authority protecting players from excess which I now see the reasons why they do so now. Maybe it is their own way of curtailing addiction before hand and not just to restrict player's freedom to play as much as they want. Only a responsible player would understand and see reasons why this was inacted.

[Questat]

I do not know for sure if this is already happening but I read a few times now on forum a new player at a new casino instantly got limited or restricted, supposedly because they were limited by Betby on another casino.

Based on the word “limited,” it sounds like these players are already known winners and the casino no longer wants to take the same risk from them.

From the casino’s side, it makes sense. Why would they keep accepting large bets from someone who keeps beating their lines? That would slowly cut into their profit and move more money toward those winning gamblers.

Still, it doesn’t feel fair from the player’s side.

Casinos always say gambling is about chance, but once someone proves they can win consistently, suddenly their limits get reduced. So the real question is, how are skilled gamblers supposed to win long term if the sportsbook can detect them early and stop taking their action?

That is probably why many professional bettors use different sportsbooks. Not because they always have a better prediction, but because once one book limits them, they need somewhere else to place the same bet.

[leea-1334]

I do not know for sure if this is already happening but I read a few times now on forum a new player at a new casino instantly got limited or restricted, supposedly because they were limited by Betby on another casino.

Casinos always say gambling is about chance, but once someone proves they can win consistently, suddenly their limits get reduced. So the real question is, how are skilled gamblers supposed to win long term if the sportsbook can detect them early and stop taking their action?

That is probably why many professional bettors use different sportsbooks. Not because they always have a better prediction, but because once one book limits them, they need somewhere else to place the same bet.

The answer most casinos would give to this is that you are supposed to be casual gambling,,, you are supposed to have fun, and lose long term

Most ToS actually cover this they will say something like 'strictly private or personal only' and exclude 'professional or commercial' use. Or they ban collussion arbitrage or advantage play something along this lines,,, anything that points to ways people gamble to be profitable

[STT]

They could do immediate payout but with some allocation to in casino game tokens, I think that's been done where finances necessitate a solution.   It does seem less appealing in hype terms then just letting people win the rare prize as openly as possible, beware the small print.

[Leahized]

In fact, any casino that imposes limits demonstrates that it operates with great caution and careful calculation. By setting betting limits, a casino ensures its bankroll is sufficient to cover potential payouts. Allowing gamblers to bet without limits could jeopardize the casino if winnings were to exceed its capacity to pay.

You said well, if a casino wants to operate properly or successfully, betting limits should be set. But I think it would be difficult to determine the maximum winning limit based on each gambler's bankroll. But I have seen several times, setting a maximum win limit for free spins or bonus spins. Especially, this is a good way for the casino. Because gamblers won't fail to pay out any big wins. Recently many casinos are appearing, gamblers refused to pay winnings only because of casino missteps (Players are also at fault though).

[Findingnemo]

In fact, any casino that imposes limits demonstrates that it operates with great caution and careful calculation. By setting betting limits, a casino ensures its bankroll is sufficient to cover potential payouts. Allowing gamblers to bet without limits could jeopardize the casino if winnings were to exceed its capacity to pay.

You said well, if a casino wants to operate properly or successfully, betting limits should be set. But I think it would be difficult to determine the maximum winning limit based on each gambler's bankroll. But I have seen several times, setting a maximum win limit for free spins or bonus spins. Especially, this is a good way for the casino. Because gamblers won't fail to pay out any big wins. Recently many casinos are appearing, gamblers refused to pay winnings only because of casino missteps (Players are also at fault though).

Every casino game or even sports betting have cap size on winning amounts, not on wagering, some mentioned that in the betting page which differs from one game to another but doesn't change when the odds changes; it is set the same/fixed for that game by the casino.And setting the cap limit on winning amount will not alone save the casino from going bankrupt, they have the edge but still if they are unlucky they can go bankrupt and in some cases they delays the bigger payouts as floating mechanism but it's late at that point to use that casino anymore.

[nara1892]

That's what I mean. Operating with minimal capital but not imposing a win limit on each user can harm the casino itself, especially its reputation. I personally played at a local casino in my country. I was a new player there, and at the same time, a lucky streak occurred, causing my account balance to grow to more than 20 times my initial capital. However, they didn't pay it out, claiming "the withdrawal process was experiencing problems." Even though I didn't do anything wrong, they still haven't paid it out.

I don't know if the casino didn't have enough capital to pay out winnings or if there was another reason, but believe me, any form of withdrawal disruption can damage a casino's reputation. I left a bad review there, which may have deterred other gamblers from playing at that casino.

Casinos who are real and committed to a successful journey and profitable business for them make sure their initial operating capital can cover not just one huge win but many whale wins in a row. They don't care if someone wins big and they pay him after auditing he has not cheated the casino adding to good reviews for them. Casinos who cannot process withdrawals fast enough and come up with different reasons as why they do so won't go far and are destined to fail. As I said real established casinos do not care how much one person wins as they are prepared for any scenario.

That is exactly what I think it really should be the case that the size of the winnings doesn't matter to the casino. When a casino opens its doors to the public, it implies they are fully prepared for any outcome. From this, I can infer that if a casino fails to pay out winnings, it is likely not due to financial constraints, but rather because they were irresponsible from the start or set up the business specifically to scam people. This is precisely why we need to be cautious when choosing a casino.

[gracreavix]

What I think is missing here is transparency. The thing is that should the max win be made public before one bets or after one has made a max win. Just as you stated. I think casinos should be transparent about this. I wouldn't like it if I made a big win and the casino comes to tell me that I have hit my max win.  I would be like, why wasn't it stated earlier? You know, that kind of thing.

And casinos are built mainly on trust. With that, you've just shattered my heart if that happens.