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

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Yeah, but the question is: should they tell their customers about the max win possible on their platform? Should they warn that they might be unable to pay out in case of gigantic wins? I personally think there’s no point in playing on sites that can’t pay out big wins. I mean, how frustrating would it be to win big once in your life and then not receive it?

Yes, a casino should tell customers their maximum win or max payable. Some casinos shows the max win that is payable to customers, if there's any casino that doesn't show it, I suggest they should do so. I don't even understand why some casino would allow customers to take a bet that can give a potential win that is above the casino's maximum payable.

[LUCKMCFLY]

A casino that applies something like that really wouldn't be Frequented by any Player once they Discover it; it's not something Worthwhile, it's anti-player to me A low , average, or High player Should have the same Possibilities all the time , what will Change for them is the amount of Money they bet with , Otherwise everything should be the Same.

[₿itcoin]

But also something that I think most players don't actually know is that some gambling licenses and jurisdictions actually require operators to set win limits as part of their risk and compliance obligations they have to follow.
However, I do understand how that it can appear negative to a player, particularly if they are informed that they have reached a "limit" following a legitimate victory.
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?

I think there is a compromise here. Setting a maximum win limit for a casino's bankroll may seem logical from some perspectives however  it also carries the risk of abuse. Small or medium  sized casinos in particular have to rely on this to manage risk. A sudden large payout can seriously damage their cash flow. Such risk management rules are crucial to their survival. However, if a casino sets the win limit too low or hides it in the terms &  conditions, it is not fair, thus you may not even know that your big win is coming

If a casino sets the win limit too low or hides it in the terms &  condition, it may be unfair to a player. You may not even know that your big win is being limited. In some jurisdictions regulator   require casinos to have some customer protection measure  in place although they do not always explicitly state the maximum win limit. This doesnt mean it is inherently anti player however it should be transparent &  reasonable. Casinos should clearly state these limits &  players should read the fine print

[sompitonov]

A casino that applies something like that really wouldn't be Frequented by any Player once they Discover it; it's not something Worthwhile, it's anti-player to me A low , average, or High player Should have the same Possibilities all the time , what will Change for them is the amount of Money they bet with , Otherwise everything should be the Same.

I also think players need to believe that even with a small bankroll, they'll have faith in winning big. After all, players' fantasies are built on inflated expectations, believing that things will definitely get better later, even if they're losing big now. And overconfident players think they'll win the biggest jackpot with the free spins they were awarded as part of a promotion. Maybe this has happened, but I think it's a one-in-a-million chance, if not more. In any case, they readily believe this, but they're reluctant to believe that the casino will win their money.

[YOSHIE]

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?

Most casinos don't want to publish their capital, it's a dead secret, in general online casinos publish their capital, of course that's a weakness for the casino itself, users can judge that the casino is sick, so users don't want to play at that casino.

Limiting winnings, which is not a good idea for some casinos, is the same as destroying the casino business itself, the casino industry, most of them publish billions of dollars in capital, whatever the winnings are paid, despite the fact that when you win big many of the casinos themselves fail without paying, limiting winnings is not a good way of doing business.

[Wakate]

Yes, a casino should tell customers their maximum win or max payable. Some casinos shows the max win that is payable to customers, if there's any casino that doesn't show it, I suggest they should do so. I don't even understand why some casino would allow customers to take a bet that can give a potential win that is above the casino's maximum payable.

Yes you are right and I have to let you know that all casinos have maximum win both in sport bet and casino games. They have maximum amount you can use to bet and maximize amount you can win when playing bets whethee you are betting on sport bets or machine games. This is very important so that you don't cripple the casino revenue and their expected threshold.

[Hispo]

Working in the industry, I can attest that managing a casinos bankroll is more complicated than simply setting high limits and letting it run.

Although some players do think that maximum wins or bet caps are unjust, a casino obviously cannot always accept unrestricted exposure without risking stability from a backend perspective. It's more important to continue operating in the event of a significant win than it is to "not want to pay."

But also something that I think most players don't actually know is that some gambling licenses and jurisdictions actually require operators to set win limits as part of their risk and compliance obligations they have to follow.

However, I do understand how that it can appear negative to a player, particularly if they are informed that they have reached a "limit" following a legitimate victory.

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?

I think it would be reasonable, specially for small casinos and casinos which are just starting to get in business. It is more honest to admit they cannot pay big money to lucky gamblers than not being transparent of the size of the bankroll and offer money to people which they cannot even pay in the fullest.

There have been examples of people who have been able to pull off bit wins on small casinos and they got offered to get paid in smaller parts through and determined period of time, that is not something which is acceptable for the majority of users, so it is better for casinos to limit those crazy multipliers and manage money within their actual possibilities.

[hedgeh0g]

I also think players need to believe that even with a small bankroll, they'll have faith in winning big. After all, players' fantasies are built on inflated expectations, believing that things will definitely get better later, even if they're losing big now. And overconfident players think they'll win the biggest jackpot with the free spins they were awarded as part of a promotion. Maybe this has happened, but I think it's a one-in-a-million chance, if not more. In any case, they readily believe this, but they're reluctant to believe that the casino will win their money.

This is the very essence of casinos: players believe in optimism, and the casino sells them this belief in the best. Bankroll is certainly an important part of the game and must be monitored, but even a player who isn't rich wants to win constantly and as much as possible, and it's best not to impose any restrictions on their dreams. This can reduce the imaginary winnings of a player determined to win big, and it doesn't matter that it's nearly impossible. In any case, if casinos decide to do this, their profits will likely decline, and competitors will be happy about it, so it shouldn't happen based on basic logic.

[She shining]

I think there was a casino on these forum where one of the founder had to compensate a winner from their own pocket because the casino wasn't liquid enough. It would help though many would attribute limits as a form of standard in measuring a strong casino.  But an issue still arises because funds available wouldn't be constant. There are casino I have used that has limit on the amount a person can bet and win.

[AmoreJaz]

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?

Most casinos don't want to publish their capital, it's a dead secret, in general online casinos publish their capital, of course that's a weakness for the casino itself, users can judge that the casino is sick, so users don't want to play at that casino.

Limiting winnings, which is not a good idea for some casinos, is the same as destroying the casino business itself, the casino industry, most of them publish billions of dollars in capital, whatever the winnings are paid, despite the fact that when you win big many of the casinos themselves fail without paying, limiting winnings is not a good way of doing business.

You will only know if the casino is not capable of paying huge winnings, when for one, they look for loopholes not to pay the player even if there's no violation at all or they tell to the player that they will pay it intermittently or in scheduled basis. Because like it or not, such disclosure to the public will give the impression that the casino doesn't have huge bankroll and for sure, some high rollers won't play on their site anymore. It means, it can reduce their number of players once the community knows that they are having difficulty in disbursing these players.

[Bitinity]

Limiting winnings, which is not a good idea for some casinos, is the same as destroying the casino business itself, the casino industry, most of them publish billions of dollars in capital, whatever the winnings are paid, despite the fact that when you win big many of the casinos themselves fail without paying, limiting winnings is not a good way of doing business.

I cant fully agree that limiting winnings = destroying the business itself, most casinos we have in this forum including Stake, Shuffle, Metawin, Rollbit, and many others implement a maximum winning limit that can be won by players in a single bet. In fact, this limit is not destroying all of them because the point of having winning limit is to assure that their business will be healthier as it means that they are managing their bankroll better. Imagine if most casinos do not set a winning limit, they might be bankrupted in single bet my a huge whale. For example, a casino with $1billion bankroll and they do not set a winning limit for a single bet, a billionaire gambler may make them bankrupt easily with few bets of even with a single bet of $1billion bet. Here is the example or proof that Stake themselves set a winning limit/max profit/max bet on a single bet:



This is what is usually meant by winning limit, it is applied for a single bet which means that players may win more that the limit in overall. For example based on the above limit on Stake, although max profit is capped at $1.7M worth of btc, a player may win more than $10M worth of btc in total but it should not be won in a single bet. Like if a player wins $1.5M 10x in a same game of in different games.

[Koadharber]

But also something that I think most players don't actually know is that some gambling licenses and jurisdictions actually require operators to set win limits as part of their risk and compliance obligations they have to follow.
However, I do understand how that it can appear negative to a player, particularly if they are informed that they have reached a "limit" following a legitimate victory.
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?

I think there is a compromise here. Setting a maximum win limit for a casino's bankroll may seem logical from some perspectives however  it also carries the risk of abuse. Small or medium  sized casinos in particular have to rely on this to manage risk. A sudden large payout can seriously damage their cash flow. Such risk management rules are crucial to their survival. However, if a casino sets the win limit too low or hides it in the terms &  conditions, it is not fair, thus you may not even know that your big win is coming

If a casino sets the win limit too low or hides it in the terms &  condition, it may be unfair to a player. You may not even know that your big win is being limited. In some jurisdictions regulator   require casinos to have some customer protection measure  in place although they do not always explicitly state the maximum win limit. This doesnt mean it is inherently anti player however it should be transparent &  reasonable. Casinos should clearly state these limits &  players should read the fine print

It’s a tricky balance because from a business standpoint win limits exist for a reason casinos especially smaller or newly established ones have to protect their liquidity if a player suddenly wins a massive jackpot it could literally wipe out their operational reserves so regulators in some jurisdictions require these limits as a risk control mechanism to make sure the casino remains solvent and can pay all players fairly over time.

But from the player’s perspective this can feel unfair especially when it’s not made clear upfront no one likes to be told their legitimate winnings are capped after the fact it’s not about losing the game it’s about losing trust this is where transparency becomes critical if a casino clearly states its win limits and explains why they exist most players would understand it’s part of the ecosystem but if it’s hidden deep in the terms and conditions that’s where it crosses the line and becomes anti player. The fair middle ground is transparency and proportionality a limit should only apply to extreme cases like jackpot scale payouts and not affect normal gameplay if a casino’s risk management is strong enough it shouldn’t need to cap modest wins honesty in communication and clear regulation are the key to keeping both sustainability for the operator and fairness for the player.

[Betwrong]

~

Yes, a casino should tell customers their maximum win or max payable. Some casinos shows the max win that is payable to customers, if there's any casino that doesn't show it, I suggest they should do so. I don't even understand why some casino would allow customers to take a bet that can give a potential win that is above the casino's maximum payable.

To be honest, I've never encountered such a casino that was telling to their customers about the max win they could pay out. It doesn't mean I've been to only some "bad" casinos all my life. Rather, they were aware of the max possible win on their machines and were ready to pay it out to whoever won it.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Maybe this has happened, but I think it's a one-in-a-million chance, if not more. In any case, they readily believe this, but they're reluctant to believe that the casino will win their money.

This is very true , in fact what kills a player the most is his own Greed , it's not even another system, neither the casino nor the Environment that is Formed , but from Oneself ,  sometimes it is born from us, that's where the bad Starts , when greed Appears , Everything can be lost, that's what we must manage , it's difficult but it can be Done.

[casey15]

Running a gambling company is just like every other business. Even casinos and betting platforms can go bankrupt.
Apart from the fact that these companies may have restrictions from government policies as a means of mitigating risk, you should know that when you place a bet, it means the company is betting against you too that is why your loss goes to them. They don't want a situation where the wins becomes too big and you take away their funds.. they have multiple people to serve . And believe me they gave calculated budget for a certain number iof wins fro a certain number of people

[qwertyup23]

Did you mean that gamblers must have cap for the amount of money that they can use to gamble and which should determine the amount that gamblers can win?
I believe in discipline because without it, not only gambling can people waste money on.

Not to mention, gambling companies would see this also as a restriction of profits on their part which is why I doubt they would implement this.

Will this kind of method lessen gamblers from spending more money in the process? YUP; but
Will this kind of method be implemented by gambling companies? NOPE.

Like you mentioned, everything would depend on the player if he/she has the necessary discipline on his expenses. This restriction would be nothing but a band-aid solution as people would find different ways to circumvent this limitation if implemented.

They don't want a situation where the wins becomes too big and you take away their funds.. they have multiple people to serve . And believe me they gave calculated budget for a certain number iof wins fro a certain number of people

I definitely agree with you.

Running a gambling business is a double-edged sword- it's all about being lucky at a certain extent even if the presence of house-edge is in your favor. Not only the players has the potential of being bankrupt but also the gambling business that loses money daily in the process.

[Orpichukwu]

I think there was a casino on these forum where one of the founder had to compensate a winner from their own pocket because the casino wasn't liquid enough. It would help though many would attribute limits as a form of standard in measuring a strong casino.  But an issue still arises because funds available wouldn't be constant. There are casino I have used that has limit on the amount a person can bet and win.

There is a reason why casinos usually place a max winning limit per game on each user, either per day or per month, depending on the casino and the game provider. I don't see anything wrong with it either, as long as they make it obvious and the player is aware of it. They also need to protect their business so that it doesn't get to a stage where they won't be able to pay winnings.

[Cointxz]

I think there was a casino on these forum where one of the founder had to compensate a winner from their own pocket because the casino wasn't liquid enough. It would help though many would attribute limits as a form of standard in measuring a strong casino.  But an issue still arises because funds available wouldn't be constant. There are casino I have used that has limit on the amount a person can bet and win.

There is a reason why casinos usually place a max winning limit per game on each user, either per day or per month, depending on the casino and the game provider. I don't see anything wrong with it either, as long as they make it obvious and the player is aware of it. They also need to protect their business so that it doesn't get to a stage where they won't be able to pay winnings.

It’s also for the safety of the user to guaranteed that they will be paid within the casino bankroll capabilities.

Imagine a casino offering a x100,000 multiplier with a max bet of 10$ while their original bankroll is just 500K. They can’t pay user with that huge win and the result is they will pay in tranches or just shutdown due to bankruptcy.

This is the common problem of old casino before since most of them was just created by an individual with low funds. Luckily, most of the reputable casino nowadays already have a huge fundings from private investors so they offer a huge max win.

[Maslate]

There’s no rule like that. Max win is based on the game itself, not on your bankroll. If someone only has $100 but hits a max win worth $1 million, then that should be paid because that’s the reward for being lucky.

If a casino bases max win on bankroll, then that’s just taking advantage of players, especially those with smaller bankrolls since they’re easier to exploit. Under that kind of rule, I would definitely stay away from that casino, or even report it.

[Muba20]

Casinos always have to set a win limit, otherwise the casino has to close its service with in a very short time. Because if there is no win limit, the casino can go bankrupt at any time. To avoid such risks, the casino must give wins according to the win limit. Nowadays, the software is designed in such a way that the gambler will only be given the amount of win that they are able to give. I sometimes see the possibility of a big win in the casino but they are near misses because they are not always able to give win. That is why even a bet that is expected to win does not happen. This cannot be said to go against the gambler because it is a business policy.