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

[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.

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.

I understand what OP has written. But if I want to win 2 millions, and to do that I need to bet 1 million, why should I be limited to do that? Then the casino should posses themselves as casino for small bettors only. If casino is not able to pay winnings, then they should offer gambler to split it in parts; make monthly payments to him. Isnt it how lotteries do when someone hits jackpot? If casino is not able to pay winning in full amount - that is casino risk, not gamblers fault. Casino could divide risk with other casino for example, pay the winner and later split profit with other casino. Isnt it how business is done?

[Free Market Capitalist]

I understand what OP has written.

Not really.

But if I want to win 2 millions, and to do that I need to bet 1 million, why should I be limited to do that?

Since you gave a very simple example, I'll give you a very simplified answer as well. If the casino doesn't have that extra million to pay you, it can't accept your bet. Although, if we think about it more deeply, it would have to be quite a bit more than a million, since you won't be the only one betting at the casino. They don't limit you as an individual; they limit certain bets based on the bankroll they have to avoid going bankrupt. It's a matter of math.

Then the casino should posses themselves as casino for small bettors only. If casino is not able to pay winnings, then they should offer gambler to split it in parts; make monthly payments to him. Isnt it how lotteries do when someone hits jackpot?

I don't know about the lotteries you're talking about, but the ones I know of pay out the amount in full, at once.

If casino is not able to pay winning in full amount - that is casino risk, not gamblers fault.

That's why they limit the bets. They are managing the risk.

Casino could divide risk with other casino for example, pay the winner and later split profit with other casino. Isnt it how business is done?

No.

[Peanutswar]

[...]
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?

Well the essence of the gambling will be neglected thats the reason why people wanted to play gambling they wanted a higher return with their bets but most of them are rarely to hit the max win of the slot games only small percentage so I dont think so they will push this kind of cap for the wins, the casino just letting their players play until when they want and until where they believe as long as the casino earns from the player but on the other hand is the casino does not want to let it happen for sure there is a possible investigation and process if ever this happens.

[Bitinity]

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.

There is no casino that limit max win based on players deposit, level but most casino set a max win limit based on their bankroll. This is the standard practice in gambling industry. Without max win limit, how will the casino pay winner if the winning amount is much bigger than their bankroll? Max win limit is actually good for both the casino and players, it is good for the casino as they can operate healthy and it is good for the players as it is like a guarantee that their winning will be paid without any issue. If max win limit is something bad for the casino, the fact shows the opposite because most people will think negatively if there is casino claim to have unlimited max win.

[OgNasty]

I could see casinos offering additional rewards for larger bankrolls. Banks do that sort of thing already. Putting a cap on wins based on the bankroll doesn’t sit right with me though. That’s why betting amounts exist. Particularly for new casinos, this could even be a way to get ahold of more customer funds before an exit scam.

[TopTort777]

Ok. What is then lump sum and why some lottery winners prefer to get paid monthly/weekly instead of taking all jackpot at once? Why lottery offer option to split jackpot?

Dunno if that cant work for gambling and paying winnings, but in business when you cant pay for something in full, you get monthly payments or how you agreed, but get item or service at once. Why cant casino do same? Offer to split winnings. What if gambler loses huge amount at once? He is risking also.

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?

[Loyang]

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.

I often hear people say and have seen posts in many places that casinos are designed or built in such a way that the casino always benefits in the long run. I almost agree with everyone's comments, because if I consider myself, I will see that if I gamble for 5 days, I am winning 1 day out of these 5 days and losing 4 days. But the 1 day I win, I am losing 4 days, which means I am winning much less.

But yes, luck plays a big role in gambling, especially in gambling in casinos, luck is everything. If you do not have luck, then you will never win and you will always face losses. But yes, if there is cheating in the casino, then this is a completely different matter.

[Dunamisx]

Maximum win should not be capped on the Bankroll size, because it will appear that only those with the highest bankroll can also stand a chance of having high winning potential. Still, things don't work like this in most cases in gambling, and that is why everyone is presented with equal opportunity based on the level of risk we are going to take. If you can accumulate odds or stake high, you could also stand the chance of having a max win from the bet you are taking, along with the risk and odds factors altogether.

[Judith87403]

Well the essence of the gambling will be neglected thats the reason why people wanted to play gambling they wanted a higher return with their bets but most of them are rarely to hit the max win of the slot games only small percentage so I dont think so they will push this kind of cap for the wins, the casino just letting their players play until when they want and until where they believe as long as the casino earns from the player but on the other hand is the casino does not want to let it happen for sure there is a possible investigation and process if ever this happens.

The more reason why I really do not see this kind of thing becoming a common practice. The intentions of some players are already to land themselves a big win, which often pushes them into making more and more deposits. Now if a casino decides to cap their win or place some kind of restrictions on how much they can actually win, just because they have a huge bankroll, then that completely changes the perception of fairness. The risks and chances in gambling applies to every player, big or small bankroll and it’s only fair if the payouts remains the same for every players too.

[hedgeh0g]

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've been thinking about this recently, and I'm sure that unscrupulous casinos generally do not determine whether they will be able to pay out a huge win to the guy who comes and puts up the biggest multiplier, even with the smallest probability. And among the millions of people, there will be one lucky person who wins . But we all know perfectly well that an unscrupulous casino will come up with excuses about multiaccounts from this guy and will also request verification of all the documents that only exist.

[xenomorfo]

Well the essence of the gambling will be neglected thats the reason why people wanted to play gambling they wanted a higher return with their bets but most of them are rarely to hit the max win of the slot games only small percentage so I dont think so they will push this kind of cap for the wins, the casino just letting their players play until when they want and until where they believe as long as the casino earns from the player but on the other hand is the casino does not want to let it happen for sure there is a possible investigation and process if ever this happens.

Here's the problem, people want a return. Gambling doesn't give you a return, at least not in money.
It makes you have fun, if you like it, and that's it. It doesn't make you money.
At almost 60 years old i have never seen gamblers make money other than poker world champions.

[Bitcoin.com97]

I feel max wins shouldn't be determine by bankroll, because out of many gamblers in the world there will be definitely be one or two lucky winner,so casino shouldn't go into bankruptcy all because of that, gambling already has a lot of risk and even the casino operator also knows the kind of risk they encounter,I remember one certain time about five persons hit a maximum win ,it took a lot for that gambling site to pay off ,they began to act funny ,as if there network is bad ,they were even draged online to pay people there money ,so there are big boys who can afford high stake to meet the maximum win .

[Rubuchi]

Maximum win should not be capped on the Bankroll size, because it will appear that only those with the highest bankroll can also stand a chance of having high winning potential. Still, things don't work like this in most cases in gambling, and that is why everyone is presented with equal opportunity based on the level of risk we are going to take. If you can accumulate odds or stake high, you could also stand the chance of having a max win from the bet you are taking, along with the risk and odds factors altogether.

so I think the best for these casinos is that instead of saying you are going to cap maximum winning because of your bankroll size, they should just set a reasonable betting limit for the gamblers from the beginning instead of accepting bets they will later struggle to honour, if I understand it correctly. Because a casino’s bankroll is as important as any other thing particularly for risk management sake but instead of reducing a player’s legitimate payout after the player has won his bet, it is better for them to reflect that from the stake limits.

[Agbe]

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?

It is not a reasonable price and it is not good. If a casino doesn't have enough funds to pay gamblers when they win, they should write it on their home page of the website to inform gamblers of the casino or bulk email to all participants and also create a pop up message on the website on the limit gamblers can withdraw do that gamblers can also limit their deposit and staking amounts. And once they have enough funds to pay any amount a gambler wins, they can rewrite the pop up message that, withdrawal amount is unlimited and gamblers again can readjust their deposit and staking. But restricting players because of bankruptcy is not a good practice.

[Questat]

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?

Do you mean that you are not getting paid the full amount you are supposed to win because of the casino’s bankroll limitation?

If that is what you mean, then that is wrong. A casino should only accept bets that it can afford to pay. That is why betting limits exist, especially for players who are winning. The purpose is to make sure the casino can still pay what is owed to them.

That is the proper way to run a business, rather than refusing to pay or trying to scam gamblers. Doing that would only damage the casino’s reputation and could eventually destroy the business they are trying to protect.

[Insanity]

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.

There is no casino that limit max win based on players deposit, level but most casino set a max win limit based on their bankroll. This is the standard practice in gambling industry. Without max win limit, how will the casino pay winner if the winning amount is much bigger than their bankroll? Max win limit is actually good for both the casino and players, it is good for the casino as they can operate healthy and it is good for the players as it is like a guarantee that their winning will be paid without any issue. If max win limit is something bad for the casino, the fact shows the opposite because most people will think negatively if there is casino claim to have unlimited max win.

A maximum win is a feature that should be implemented in a casino to ensure that the maximum amount of money that can be won is in line with how much a casino can afford. If the casino is unable to pay the big jackpot when it's won. Then it doesn't matter. With that being said. Transparency has to be at least as important. The terms should explicitly specify the maximum payout. And not rely on confusing terms. Most players will agree reasonable limits as long as they are told what these limits are ahead of time and will feel assured that the casino has enough money to be able to let the real winners win, and will pay them quickly.

[noorman0]

Do you mean that you are not getting paid the full amount you are supposed to win because of the casino’s bankroll limitation?

If that is what you mean, then that is wrong. A casino should only accept bets that it can afford to pay. That is why betting limits exist, especially for players who are winning. The purpose is to make sure the casino can still pay what is owed to them.

That is the proper way to run a business, rather than refusing to pay or trying to scam gamblers. Doing that would only damage the casino’s reputation and could eventually destroy the business they are trying to protect.

This can lead to more complex filters because each player's betting and winning setup s can vary in ways that are mathematically unpredictable, and it's impossible to assume all individual players will win.
Furthermore, in a competitive environment, this type of restriction is unlikely to be adopted by any casino, as it eliminates the potential for high-rollers.

[panjul07]

Maximum win should not be capped on the Bankroll size, because it will appear that only those with the highest bankroll can also stand a chance of having high winning potential. Still, things don't work like this in most cases in gambling, and that is why everyone is presented with equal opportunity based on the level of risk we are going to take. If you can accumulate odds or stake high, you could also stand the chance of having a max win from the bet you are taking, along with the risk and odds factors altogether.

It seems that you misunderstand the main point of this topic, it is not about limiting max win based on player's bankroll but based on casino's bankroll.
No matter how much the bankroll of the players, they have the same chance to hit the max win cap set by the casino.
Max win cap/limit set by the casino is must thing to have as it is how the casino manage their bankroll to avoid getting bankrupt in a single bet or few bets only.

[impulse709]

Maximum win should not be capped on the Bankroll size, because it will appear that only those with the highest bankroll can also stand a chance of having high winning potential. Still, things don't work like this in most cases in gambling, and that is why everyone is presented with equal opportunity based on the level of risk we are going to take. If you can accumulate odds or stake high, you could also stand the chance of having a max win from the bet you are taking, along with the risk and odds factors altogether.

It seems that you misunderstand the main point of this topic, it is not about limiting max win based on player's bankroll but based on casino's bankroll.
No matter how much the bankroll of the players, they have the same chance to hit the max win cap set by the casino.
Max win cap/limit set by the casino is must thing to have as it is how the casino manage their bankroll to avoid getting bankrupt in a single bet or few bets only.

I agree, that a maximum win is a tool used by the casino to manage their bankroll and not an individual player. If a player hits that desired result, he or she still has the same chance to achieve it. If there are no reasonable limits, a small or medium-sized casino might go bankrupt following a single exceptional pay off. However it's important that this is made known ahead of time to a player before they place a bet. Trust is also crucial. And hidden or disproportionately low win limits can negatively affect trust and lead to a sense of being deceived among players.

[promise444c5]

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

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

I don’t know if I should say they gamble it too sometimes  ; D  like there’s a big chance the gambler lose the bet while they make more profit..

BUT… depending on what’s being developed & designed  by the casino already , I don’t think they will directly gamble it but instead rely on some checks to know if there should be a cap on it or let it be to make some profits .

Not sure but I think provider should have settings that can be tuned to fit what Casino wants aswell.