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

[JunaidAzizi]

There are two perspectives now, one from the casino and the second from the users, and they both want to protect themselves. So, we have to find another way that can be applicable to both, saving the casino's bankroll and the users win too. I think the casino has to show the limits for each game, indicating how much a user can earn. This way, when the users reach their limit, they can stop by themselves. By doing this, the casino's reputation can be preserved, and users can also be satisfied with the casinos. In short, both sides are right, the main issue is transparency, and the casinos have to show it before playing.

[angrybirdy]

There are two perspectives now, one from the casino and the second from the users, and they both want to protect themselves. So, we have to find another way that can be applicable to both, saving the casino's bankroll and the users win too. I think the casino has to show the limits for each game, indicating how much a user can earn. This way, when the users reach their limit, they can stop by themselves. By doing this, the casino's reputation can be preserved, and users can also be satisfied with the casinos. In short, both sides are right, the main issue is transparency, and the casinos have to show it before playing.

I agree that transparency is essential, any changes to the house rules should be clearly communicated to all players/members as soon as they are implemented it toprevent any confusions and also to ensure that everyone understands the updated rules...As you've said, this may be the casino's approach to build a reasonable limitations for both parties. For players, a winning cap may help them prevent an excessive gambling behavior by setting clear boundaries and for the casino, it can assist in managing its bankroll while potentially allowing additional resources to be allocated to their employee compensations or improvements to game features. But, even with the introduction of new game mechanics, the winning cap should remain clearly defined and consistently enforced.

[Furious 7]

There are two perspectives now, one from the casino and the second from the users, and they both want to protect themselves. So, we have to find another way that can be applicable to both, saving the casino's bankroll and the users win too. I think the casino has to show the limits for each game, indicating how much a user can earn. This way, when the users reach their limit, they can stop by themselves. By doing this, the casino's reputation can be preserved, and users can also be satisfied with the casinos. In short, both sides are right, the main issue is transparency, and the casinos have to show it before playing.

In some sites there are already features for money limits that gamblers can bet on and there are even sites that provide self-exclusion options for gamblers that are intended to make gamblers wiser with the financial conditions they have.

The main task of the site is to provide decent facilities to make the gambler comfortable and I think the task of gambling restrictions in terms of time or money it should not be entirely charged to the site or service provider but to each gambler.

We as gamblers must have our own responsibility regarding this and it would be a little strange if all the responsibilities that should be for the gamblers but it is in charge of the site from the beginning of its task is to provide good facilities and smoothness in terms of deposit/withdrawal.

[alastantiger]

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

Anyone supporting casinos to have a maximum limit that a gambler can win then they should also support gamblers that want casinos to have a maximum limit that a gambler can lose so that if I set a limit for myself to only lose $100 and I have multiple bets then immediately I lose up to that $100 I will not be able to lose anymore and all my other open bets get cancelled. If that is not possible then I don't support a reason why I will be limited to the amount of cash prize that I can have meanwhile I keep on losing and the casino keep making money from my losses. Casinos are always looking for how to win without facing risk that is why they look for all these kind of solution but they forget about their participants that they have been making money from for many years. Any casino that don't have enough money to pay to their winners then they should not be operating because they are being unfair to their customers.

[Hispo]

...

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

As far as I know providers actually allow their customers (casinos and gaming services) to mess around with the edge and chances of their games, so they suit better the needs of the casino and there is a cal on the max win for a single spin or roll, in order to protect the liquidity of the casino.
Though, I don't know the details of the terms of such set ups or agreements between casinos and providers.

As in any business, the casino is supposed to take calculated risks in order to expand and get their profit, but I don't think they would not get themselves in a situation which could jeopardize their liquidity, reputation and place in business, that is just plain greed, if you asked me.

[ThemePen]

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

Anyone supporting casinos to have a maximum limit that a gambler can win then they should also support gamblers that want casinos to have a maximum limit that a gambler can lose so that if I set a limit for myself to only lose $100 and I have multiple bets then immediately I lose up to that $100 I will not be able to lose anymore and all my other open bets get cancelled. If that is not possible then I don't support a reason why I will be limited to the amount of cash prize that I can have meanwhile I keep on losing and the casino keep making money from my losses. Casinos are always looking for how to win without facing risk that is why they look for all these kind of solution but they forget about their participants that they have been making money from for many years. Any casino that don't have enough money to pay to their winners then they should not be operating because they are being unfair to their customers.

Regulated markets have loss limits in place I think. Like some casinos in UK and in EU are legally required to provide deposit and loss limits, as well as self stopping options, which allows you to set a limit and the site will stop you making any more deposits after you reach it.

Issue is that these are choice based responsible gambling tools and not per game stop points as you describe. They must be set by hand before play and most crypto casinos that are not under strict rules offer them at all.

So the real difference is not that there is limit on losses, it is that unlicensed and foreign platforms do not have to build a loss limit because no one is forcing them to do so. If it is important to you, stick to properly approved sites.

[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?

You have a very weird outlook on this situation. Casinos offer the games they want to offer under the rules that they are usually quite open about. Players can read and understand those rules before deciding to participate or not. Nobody is forcing a player to play in a game which they don't feel gives them a certain benefit, but I very much doubt they'll find much better on offer elsewhere either. These games are all calculated to give an advantage to the casino, because they are not a charity there to give out free money just because a person can fill out a registration form. There will be games where any stake can give you access to the max win, but that just brings down the level of the max win which is actually unfair to the higher stake players.

[STT]

If the game allows the luck then a full win should be allowed because you can be sure as hell the bad luck where you very rarely win is perfectly played out as often as need be.  Surely its unfair to cut short any good luck for people.
  It'd make more sense to me to cap the stake size on some games perhaps, maybe there's a premium level achieved after you gamble a certain amount that'd encourage greater participation.   A casino wishing to restrict makes me think they are a lightweight, surely its not a good image.

[Hatchy]

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?

Such features can be abused by the casinos or the bookmarkers. You can imagine bringing out a notice of limit breach immediately a gambler wins a significant amount of wins just to deprive them of their wins and favor the casino instead. Sometimes we know that managing bankroll to acquire wins is very difficult and you might exhaust your bankroll before even making any.

You have a very weird outlook on this situation. Casinos offer the games they want to offer under the rules that they are usually quite open about. Players can read and understand those rules before deciding to participate or not. Nobody is forcing a player to play in a game which they don't feel gives them a certain benefit, but I very much doubt they'll find much better on offer elsewhere either. These games are all calculated to give an advantage to the casino, because they are not a charity there to give out free money just because a person can fill out a registration form. There will be games where any stake can give you access to the max win, but that just brings down the level of the max win which is actually unfair to the higher stake players.

Exactly.. we already know that we barly have any chances of winning because the casino are not dump. Those rules are set to make sure that when you eventually make the wind, you simply won't be able to take them away. I sometimes think it's unfair to us the gamblers because when we lose no matter how big it is, it's not a problem. But wins usually creates room for the casino to bring rules into play..

[EluguHcman]

~Snip~

Anyone supporting casinos to have a maximum limit that a gambler can win then they should also support gamblers that want casinos to have a maximum limit that a gambler can lose so that if I set a limit for myself to only lose $100 and I have multiple bets then immediately I lose up to that $100 I will not be able to lose anymore and all my other open bets get cancelled.

I totally disagree with you and until we realizes the edges of the casinos, we gamblers won't still understand why the casinos have advantages over gamblers.

Don't forget that you as a player is expected to abide by their T&Cs while it is left for you to decide accept it or leave.
It is only from the companies site reviews users can make opinions while it is the right of the  company to decide but yet, users don't make the rules but the casinos.

Casinos setting up Max win is necessary in other to maintain long term service while prevents bankruptcy.
It is your duty as a gambler to decide your betting plans on how much you can afford to loose which the casino also has no right to decide for you on that.

[AgriTrack]

There are two perspectives now, one from the casino and the second from the users, and they both want to protect themselves. So, we have to find another way that can be applicable to both, saving the casino's bankroll and the users win too. I think the casino has to show the limits for each game, indicating how much a user can earn. This way, when the users reach their limit, they can stop by themselves. By doing this, the casino's reputation can be preserved, and users can also be satisfied with the casinos. In short, both sides are right, the main issue is transparency, and the casinos have to show it before playing.

You are right in some ways, but not fully. When you begin playing a game, the casino should announce the maximum limit clearly, not bury this info in the terms and conditions where no one reads it. But the real question is not just whether the limit is displayed, it’s how it is displayed. Fine print will not maintain user faith if there is a big win followed by a restriction, this only creates frustration and doubt. If casino has a limited bankroll to pay off big wins, that’s a problem which casino created for itself, and now they are passing it on to the user in the guise of transparency. So transparency is the correct way to do things, but it should be done with clarity, not just as a way to protect themselves legally.

[sotelorene]

There are two perspectives now, one from the casino and the second from the users, and they both want to protect themselves. So, we have to find another way that can be applicable to both, saving the casino's bankroll and the users win too. I think the casino has to show the limits for each game, indicating how much a user can earn. This way, when the users reach their limit, they can stop by themselves. By doing this, the casino's reputation can be preserved, and users can also be satisfied with the casinos. In short, both sides are right, the main issue is transparency, and the casinos have to show it before playing.

You are right and I believe their are some casino that do show their limit on their terms and conditions and the maximum number of game that can be selected in a bet. The Casino I use do show these and in that note I don't try to go out of the rules and sometimes when you try to play a game above the limit there is write up that will pop up telling, you have exceeded the limit and that you will have to reduce it before you can bet successfully but I think some casinos don't show these that why they are getting some issues lately.

[bitLeap]

Casinos setting up Max win is necessary in other to maintain long term service while prevents bankruptcy.
It is your duty as a gambler to decide your betting plans on how much you can afford to loose which the casino also has no right to decide for you on that.

Every casino has Risk Management, setting betting limits and winning limits is one of the actions so that the casino is able to operate. This arrangement is not excessive, precisely if the casino does not set a limit then their move is very risky, regardless of the casino already has a house edge though. Casinos that want to remain in operation long term should always make sure a bankroll is available to pay for each player's winnings.

[Royal Cap]

The main issue is transparency, and the casinos have to show it before playing.

Of course, transparency is needed but I don't think simply stating the maximum win limit seem to solve all the problems. The main thing I think is that the player should be able to see that limit clearly before placing a bet and that the casino should not be able to change the rules later with new interpretations. Another thing is that if a casino knows that they cannot pay out more than a certain amount, then they should not accept bets that have a potential win exceeding that limit.  It doesn't seem fair to me to take bets first and then talk about the limit when winning.

[Zadicar]

Casinos setting up Max win is necessary in other to maintain long term service while prevents bankruptcy.
It is your duty as a gambler to decide your betting plans on how much you can afford to loose which the casino also has no right to decide for you on that.

Every casino has Risk Management, setting betting limits and winning limits is one of the actions so that the casino is able to operate. This arrangement is not excessive, precisely if the casino does not set a limit then their move is very risky, regardless of the casino already has a house edge though. Casinos that want to remain in operation long term should always make sure a bankroll is available to pay for each player's winnings.

Actually thats how business works and how it should be and knowing gambling that once that extreme luck strikes on a certain gambler and able to win up millions or hundreds of thousands then that would surely be ending up for you to have a bankrupted business and thats something that you do need up to be careful about. Of course they would be setting out those max wins or having those caps on how much they would really be allowing because if they wont on which considering that there are gamblers who do bet out on very risky odds and dont care and as we do know that chances on hitting is not impossible even though its slim but its not zero then that would surely be a devastating one for the business. In regarding about bankroll size limitation of their max wins then it would be that much of that control and for sure gamblers will definitely be not liking or wanting this kind of terms.

[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.

[Comeacross]

Anyone supporting casinos to have a maximum limit that a gambler can win then they should also support gamblers that want casinos to have a maximum limit that a gambler can lose so that if I set a limit for myself to only lose $100 and I have multiple bets then immediately I lose up to that $100 I will not be able to lose anymore and all my other open bets get cancelled. If that is not possible then I don't support a reason why I will be limited to the amount of cash prize that I can have meanwhile I keep on losing and the casino keep making money from my losses. Casinos are always looking for how to win without facing risk that is why they look for all these kind of solution but they forget about their participants that they have been making money from for many years. Any casino that don't have enough money to pay to their winners then they should not be operating because they are being unfair to their customers.

Let be honest, do you think the industry would survive if they implement this rule? The business will crumble if both the casinos and the players have equal risk control.

If you don't want to lose too much, you can make use of responsible gambling tools. Almost all casinos have this feature now, it's not perfect but it still allows you to make some adjustments like deposit limits and cool off time.

We are just making a blind argument here because we read their terms and agreed before we start using their platforms. As a player, I'm not supporting them but we really have no much options than to accept that they are exploiting us.

[Furious 7]

There are two perspectives now, one from the casino and the second from the users, and they both want to protect themselves. So, we have to find another way that can be applicable to both, saving the casino's bankroll and the users win too. I think the casino has to show the limits for each game, indicating how much a user can earn. This way, when the users reach their limit, they can stop by themselves. By doing this, the casino's reputation can be preserved, and users can also be satisfied with the casinos. In short, both sides are right, the main issue is transparency, and the casinos have to show it before playing.

I don't think it's going to be effective. When we gamble the basic nature that will appear is that we do not want to be regulated by anyone including the casino itself.
Limits in gambling are fully borne by The Gambler not the responsibility of the casino including the amount of Capital owned.

It would be very silly if from the beginning there was an arrangement especially about the maximum win limit just because the capital we have because of regulations like this will only benefit the casino but not for the gambler.
They have no right to regulate anything because the task of the casino is to prepare the gambling arena properly including in terms of service as for the outside of it such as the limits of our capital to gamble, the responsibility in gambling is all the responsibility of the gambler not the casino because it is the duty of us as players to discipline ourselves properly.

[famososMuertos]

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?

No, I didnt mean that gamblers should be capped on the amount they bet or win, what I meant was that casinos actually having limits on their end. As some casinos actually set out payout or win caps based on their own bankroll to actually mange their own risk and to keep operations stable.

+1
Right here, a case happened involving a very reputable player. I don't remember the exact amount, maybe five (or 6) figures. He couldn't do anything, it was in the terms and conditions. Now, the curious thing is that this casino allowed maximum bets on slots.. If I remember correctly, the maximum withdrawals were around five thousand dollars a week. I think it would take him two years to withdraw all his winnings.

This happens mainly with new casinos, but it's not always the case. Some casinos have limits of $250,000 a week. It seems like a lot, but if you win a million, you have to wait a month to withdraw.

If you're a high roller, it's simple: you go to casinos that pay out millions of dollars in a single withdrawal. In any case, any of us with regular bets would prefer to have a problem with only being able to withdraw $250,000 a week. 

[Bitinity]

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.

There are some casinos that also do the same (paying with monthly installment) but it is not about the max win cap as it is usually related to withdrawal limit. Simple example, a casino let player to win $1M in single bet but they apply something like monthly withdrawal limit so the player have no choice except to accept the installment payment.

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.