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

[junder]

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.

Yes, luck will give the player a random amount of winnings and the casino must pay the winnings obtained by the player regardless of the amount, because if the casino does not pay the winnings obtained by the player then it can make their reputation bad.

What I think is that this gambling win can happen anytime and with a random amount, but on the other hand the amount of this win may have been set by the casino because if they don't set the amount of the win maybe the casino can lose more than the profit it gets.

[TheUltraElite]

Bustabit has a bankroll and the max possible win is also displayed on the site where the chart is shown for every game.

Other sites do not publicly show this but have some backside work going on to keep the hot wallet topped up by cold wallets.

Either method is applicable and I guess it is upto the casino how to operate this situation. They might be new with small amount of funds at hand and want to use the first method initially or cap it and not tell others hoping that problems will not happen. Eventually they may shift to the second option while still not publicly admitting the max possible win.

[Ishicryptic]

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.

I used to wonder if there were multiple huge wins in a casino at once whether they would have enough reserve funds to pay all the winners at the same time because despite their house edge there are possibilities that it can happen so for casinos to protect their integrity it is important to place max wins. But personally I don't look for max win features in a casino because I just go in to have some fun with small amounts that I'm comfortable to lose. Max win should be a concern for heavy gamblers who uses very huge amounts to gamble, they are the ones who would be more concerned about a max win in a casino because if they do win it must be a jackpot so knowing about the capacity of the casinos to pay should be a worry to them.

[Crypto_Timothy]

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 do think it is very reasonable for casinos to manage their risk and protect their financial stability, especially if certain jurisdictions require win limits as part of their licensing rules but then they just have to be transparent with it. If a casino has maximum win limits or payout caps, those terms should be made very clear before a player places a bet, not after they win, so as long as players know the rules in advance and the casino honors them consistently, it is a fair business practice for everyone actually.

[Hispo]

Bustabit has a bankroll and the max possible win is also displayed on the site where the chart is shown for every game.

Other sites do not publicly show this but have some backside work going on to keep the hot wallet topped up by cold wallets.

Either method is applicable and I guess it is upto the casino how to operate this situation. They might be new with small amount of funds at hand and want to use the first method initially or cap it and not tell others hoping that problems will not happen. Eventually they may shift to the second option while still not publicly admitting the max possible win.

I have always had the impression that degree of transparency is rather the exception to the rule when comes to the gambling ecosystem on the internet, casinos which choose to be so transparent seem to try to inspire trust on their gambler as a way to keep them gambling on their website, instead of other platforms which keep their bankroll as a company secret.

It seems there is no push from regulators to ensure those who hold a gambling license are required to make their bankroll public to the general public, as in their eyes, there are other priorities: anti-money laundering measures, collecting KYC data and so on.

[Insanity]

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.

I used to wonder if there were multiple huge wins in a casino at once whether they would have enough reserve funds to pay all the winners at the same time because despite their house edge there are possibilities that it can happen so for casinos to protect their integrity it is important to place max wins. But personally I don't look for max win features in a casino because I just go in to have some fun with small amounts that I'm comfortable to lose. Max win should be a concern for heavy gamblers who uses very huge amounts to gamble, they are the ones who would be more concerned about a max win in a casino because if they do win it must be a jackpot so knowing about the capacity of the casinos to pay should be a worry to them.

I believe there should be a maximum win amount, but no more than that as it is just a way to cover up a casino's financial insecurity. Where a casino does establish a cap, it should be clearly defined in the terms prior to any player depositing or placing a bet. It's all about transparency. A good casino will also have enough reserves to payout the games rather than win caps. Before deciding whether to play at a casino, it's essential that high rollers review their reputation, bankroll and payout history.

[Free Market Capitalist]

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

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?

For someone who supposedly works in the industry, it's hard to believe you'd ask that question. It's not a matter of fairness or whether it's reasonable or not—it's a must. If you want to run a casino and face a very high risk of going bankrupt, that’s exactly what you have to do: don’t set limits on bets out of some supposed sense of fairness toward the players or some nonsense like that. Besides, the worst part won’t be having to close the business; the real problem will be if a “whale” wins such a huge bet that, on top of having to close, you’re left with a debt to pay them.

It is standard practice for the maximum amount a player can win to be capped at the maximum amount they can bet.

Cap value on winning amount existed even before casinos were regulated, to save their bankroll from getting rekt by a lucky bastard.

That's pretty much it.

[Nrcewker]

I don’t know about others, but I feel that casinos should set the maximum winning amount according to their bankroll. This shouldn’t be mandated by license providers; rather, casinos themselves should be responsible for making the decision to implement maximum win limits based on their bankroll.

Honesty and transparency should be maintained by both the gambler and the casino to ensure smooth transactions.

Now, regarding players’ maximum betting limits, I think those are determined by the market demand for a game and the number of players betting on it. For example, in sports betting, if you’re betting on a lower league or a less popular match, the betting limits are usually lower. So yes, I don’t think betting limits of a player have to be dependent on or related to a casino’s bankroll.

[Bryan jessy]

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

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?

For someone who supposedly works in the industry, it's hard to believe you'd ask that question. It's not a matter of fairness or whether it's reasonable or not—it's a must. If you want to run a casino and face a very high risk of going bankrupt, that’s exactly what you have to do: don’t set limits on bets out of some supposed sense of fairness toward the players or some nonsense like that. Besides, the worst part won’t be having to close the business; the real problem will be if a “whale” wins such a huge bet that, on top of having to close, you’re left with a debt to pay them.

It is standard practice for the maximum amount a player can win to be capped at the maximum amount they can bet.

Cap value on winning amount existed even before casinos were regulated, to save their bankroll from getting rekt by a lucky bastard.

That's pretty much it.

Honestly no human will invest somuch to open a business just to run at loss at the end of the day, it will be fair for the terms to be clearly start as part of their condition while setting up the casino; such thing should already exist beforehand and not when a player has made so much win then they try to maximize their payout, they should have thought about it right from the very beginning, it should not be an emergency case. And some casino do not have such terms stated they believe a gambler will withdraw after much win or loses but what if the gambler is an addict and has refused to withdraw after lots of wins, so it good for such information to be given from the onset.

[Dunamisx]

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?

From my experience with the use of casinos, I don't think I see knows do determine this by such Factor whereby the consider your potential wind based on your bankroll, there is no restriction as long as what we stand to win is within the maximum win and the minimum withdrawal we are going to make after winning, what's the determines our potential winning is odds being given and there is where they set the maximum odd on their terms of service.

[yahoo62278]

In the early days casinos used Kelly criterion as the rule for their casino and the max bet. Basically the max win was 1/100th of the casinos bankroll. This was before all the slots and shit were added to sites so the old primedice, moneypot, bustadice, and others.

IMO it should be how a casino is operating so players know they will receive their winnings, but it would turn off highrollers. Most casinos these days don't have issues as the games are enough of a house edge that as long as the casino has a somewhat decent starting bankroll, the house edge is going to keep a site operating in the positive for the most part. Now obviously a casino could experience some bad luck and a few max wins happens crushing their bankroll, but that's rare.

[Fortify]

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 don't think you work in the industry at all, but if you do you don't understand the most basic relationship between the casino and the gambler. Nobody is forcing people to drop money or engage in a bet that they don't want to take, people simply do it willingly and you'll find some that do it even when the odds seem unbelievably crazy to the average person. Casinos will lay out all the odds and give you a full instruction of how the game works, because some people simply like to play such games even when they know it's futile. Then there are problem gamblers who chase losses or think they are somehow just a spin away from reversing all their "misfortune" so far, but it doesn't happen because they're playing against mathematics rather than some divine intervention they're expecting.

[Johnlomape]

Bustabit has a bankroll and the max possible win is also displayed on the site where the chart is shown for every game.

Other sites do not publicly show this but have some backside work going on to keep the hot wallet topped up by cold wallets.

Either method is applicable and I guess it is upto the casino how to operate this situation. They might be new with small amount of funds at hand and want to use the first method initially or cap it and not tell others hoping that problems will not happen. Eventually they may shift to the second option while still not publicly admitting the max possible win.

I have been seeing maximum win you can attain on Sporty bet and some other casinos too which tell you that your winnings cannot exceed their allocated possible wins for any of their player. I think this is meant to protect their bankroll so that they don't lose too much to their users that are trying every way possible for them to hit a big wins from gambling.

I have seen gamblers that are ready to take too much risk than they can afford to lose and if they are lucky enough for their bet to hit a win it mean that the casino any incur a big lose that can become too high to pay their users winnings if the amount is too high.

[promise444c5]

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?

Why not ?
You want them to go bankrupt or lose their reputation if they can’t possibly pay out a specific jackpot ?  Bryon d  what casino can handle shouldn’t be allowed in the first place than giving a false hope ontop of another false hope. Over a bet .

Even if they can possibly  handle it, there are sometimes that they can’t just credit a jackpot all at once because It can affected them..in such cases, I believe agreement are made between the player and the casino.

[uchegod-21]

I do not have a problem with casinos setting maximum win limits based on bankroll size, as long as they openly declare these restrictions so gamblers will know what is at stake. Letting people know about such restrictions is better than delaying gamblers' winnings and giving unnecessary excuses for the delay in processing withdrawals.

Although such win restrictions may force gamblers to increase their bankroll just so they can win more, it will not be favourable to a gambler who chooses to limit the amount he gambles with.

However, my main point here is that casinos should let their gamblers know about any restrictions they have based on bankroll size rather than unnecessarily frustrating the withdrawal process for gamblers.

[Mandoy]

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 don't think you work in the industry at all, but if you do you don't understand the most basic relationship between the casino and the gambler. Nobody is forcing people to drop money or engage in a bet that they don't want to take, people simply do it willingly and you'll find some that do it even when the odds seem unbelievably crazy to the average person. Casinos will lay out all the odds and give you a full instruction of how the game works, because some people simply like to play such games even when they know it's futile. Then there are problem gamblers who chase losses or think they are somehow just a spin away from reversing all their "misfortune" so far, but it doesn't happen because they're playing against mathematics rather than some divine intervention they're expecting.

It is the players decision whether to take risks. Casinos should also hold themselves accountable for revealing the odds and rules. But transparency is not enough to resolve the issue of the cap on wins. When a casino advertises a game. It should also explicitly advertise its payout limits prior to players wagering. For smaller casinos, it may be fair to tie max wins to the casino's bankroll. However, those restrictions need to be communicated at the beginning. If a player wins and then the caps are changed or hidden, this would have a much more negative effect on the trust between players than if there were clearly stated caps from the start.

[Hispo]

... I believe agreement are made between the player and the casino.

Actually, it has happened before. Cases of relatively small casinos on which some lucky gambler hit the jackpot and won millions of dollars, just to be reached by the administration of the casino and be told his prize would be handed over to him in several parts though a relatively long period of time.
I imagine it must be quite frustrating for a lucky gambler not to have immediate access to all his money.
Ironically, it could be a blessing in disguise to some gamblers, as that time to cold down could actually help them to take better financially choices, as their money comes in gradually.

Still, no casino should be in such situation, having debts to their own gamblers.

[Insanity]

In the early days casinos used Kelly criterion as the rule for their casino and the max bet. Basically the max win was 1/100th of the casinos bankroll. This was before all the slots and shit were added to sites so the old primedice, moneypot, bustadice, and others.

IMO it should be how a casino is operating so players know they will receive their winnings, but it would turn off highrollers. Most casinos these days don't have issues as the games are enough of a house edge that as long as the casino has a somewhat decent starting bankroll, the house edge is going to keep a site operating in the positive for the most part. Now obviously a casino could experience some bad luck and a few max wins happens crushing their bankroll, but that's rare.

The maximum amount of money which a casino can win must be determined according to the size of the bankroll of the casino. But it must be known from the beginning. Players will be better served to understand the payout limit before betting rather than finding themselves in the situation where they've won large amounts and then been capped. A low payoff can deter big wagers, but an unattainable payout guarantee can threaten the casino's financial well-being. An effective casino will be able to strike a balance that's able to entice players in while keeping in a healthy amount of cash to make sure that every possible winning hand is paid out without delay.

[TopTort777]

I think if casino set a cap of max wins based on players deposit, account level, bankroll and etc, it will be bad for that casino. Because a lot of players who gamble have a wish to become rich, to win a life changing amount, to turn nothing into everything. If they would be limited by casino, their dreams would be broken. Without cap max win, they can imagine and dream about winning any amount. With cap max win, whey they know their maximum, that will influence on their decision to play.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I think if casino set a cap of max wins based on players deposit, account level, bankroll and etc, it will be bad for that casino.

That's a great strawman arg right there. Have you even read the OP?

The limits imposed by casinos are the same for all players; that only happens in sports betting. In casinos, betting limits are set as a bankroll management strategy to prevent the casino from going bankrupt. In addition, they are often required by law.

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.