Self-exclusion: Protection or a Pointless Peature?

[stompix]

But Self-Exclusion often doesn't really work:
- It's easy to bypass: If someone wants to gamble, they will open another account, switch casinos...

In other news:
- Seatbelts don't work when people don't wear them
- Stress balls don't work if you don't use them when you're stressed
- Signs don't work when people ignore them...

Self-exclusion works if all casinos adhere to this, you're saying that a feature doesn't work because it's actually not implemented at all

I have not heard of self-exclusion for bank loans unless the person is not worthy to be given loan like if the person have an active loan in bank and trying to borrow money in another bank.

It exists in a few countries and is more widely spread with certain banks
It's pretty easy in most countries to be implemented since they all must do a credit check before giving you a loan, you simply file a request to your fiscal overseer and any such check will return a voided score.
Of course, it doesn't work with loan sharks!

[bitLeap]

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

I tried this at a casino that is well known on this forum, but as I still wanted to gamble, I decided to create a new account at another casino. However this feature is still important and mandatory in every casino, offering a real form of protection for gamblers who intend to take a break. Whether or not this feature is effective depends on the gamblers themselves, like me who still wanted to gamble but ended up trying to use this feature and gambling again instead.

[fortunecrypto]

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

Its protection if you only play at one casino and you are loyal to that casino, but in reality, we can hardly find a gambler who only plays in one casino, so it's pretty pointless, you can exclude yourself in one casino, but since you signed up on several casinos, that exclusion on one casino will not work unless you exclude yourself on all these casinos.

So, for me, it's a pointless feature. You're free to play at other casinos, since there are so many online, and each offers its own features, so inclusion in one casino could be your ticket to exploring others.

[Porfirii]

Self-exclusion feature is like nicotine chewing gums, it helps quitting gambling, but it won't be the solution if you don't make the effort to really quit. I think that every help is welcome, and this kind of features are definitely helpful as they make it harder to access your habitual platforms, because, although creating new accounts or going to other platforms isn't hard, it causes additional inconvenience.

Until a better solution is found, self-exclusion is quite a good thing, IMO. It is not miraculous, but still...

[jcojci]

That is not work for gamblers who often gambling. But for some people who want to reduce their gambling activity, that may work if they really want to control their gambling habit.

Self-exclusion only work if you realize to control yourself. But some people who know the dangers will limit themselves and not use that feature. They think they can do that because they don't treat gambling as sources of income but only for fun.

Casino gives this feature to follow the government regulations so people can limit their gambling activity and will not becomes addicted to gambling. But people seem not to listen and still gambling as they want.

[dunfida]

That is not work for gamblers who often gambling. But for some people who want to reduce their gambling activity, that may work if they really want to control their gambling habit.

Self-exclusion only work if you realize to control yourself. But some people who know the dangers will limit themselves and not use that feature. They think they can do that because they don't treat gambling as sources of income but only for fun.

Casino gives this feature to follow the government regulations so people can limit their gambling activity and will not becomes addicted to gambling. But people seem not to listen and still gambling as they want.

Self exclusion sits in a strange place because it is neither useless nor a cure on its own. Its effectiveness depends entirely on the intention behind using it. For people who gamble occasionally and notice their habits drifting too far it can act as a reminder and a pause button. In that context it works because the person already wants to slow down. The tool supports a decision that has already been made internally.

For frequent or compulsive gamblers the situation is different. When gambling becomes automatic logic no longer leads behavior. In that state self exclusion feels like a technical obstacle rather than a boundary. Opening a new account or switching platforms becomes an easy workaround. That does not mean the feature is pointless but it does show its limitation. Tools cannot replace willingness. Control has to start in the mind before it can be reinforced externally.

[Dickiy]

Great idea and actually I also have one gambler friend who managed to get out of the addiction zone with that method, I really saw how he struggled to exclude himself from the gambling environment, from the casino and from anything that could connect him to gambling.

It is true that saying it and planning it is always much easier than practicing it but that is how it should be. The reason why I agree with the idea is because the difficulty of getting out of gambling addiction is actually because we often see gambling activities carried out by others such as influencer promotions, this slowly attracts your attention and curiosity to play and eventually you are tempted to play again.

[aysha9853]

I don’t think it’s pointless but people expect too much from it gambling addiction is not a technical problem, it’s a mental one blocking access might slow things down but it won’t fix the reason why someone keeps gambling without self control or external help, self exclusion is easy to ignore.

[libert19]

I ain't fan of self-exclusion whether on casinos or exchanges, it never made sense to me, if I don't want to do particular thing, I just stop doing it but I do understand it might not be that simple for addicts and only they know if they find any worth in these measures.

[danherbias07]

You have a point there, but I like the fact that you cannot gamble for 24 hours after activating that feature. It means you will have no choice but to use another gambling site. Now, if that other online casino is asking for too much information, KYC, and other stuff that needs to be filled out, a gambler will probably be too lazy to do it and call it a day.

IMO, it's still a feature that can make a gambler take a walk and maybe think about all the money he spent. There are times when a gambler will say "it's enough" and take that self-exclusion option. Now, if he changes his mind, he cannot go back that easily to the same online casino.

[Shinpako09]

It’s actually a good feature. It will only look pointless if you’re playing on another site where you didn’t activate that feature. So, you should activate it on all the sites where you play for it to be effective. As long as you can restrain yourself and don’t look for another site, that feature is good. There’s no point in using that feature if you’ll just play on another site. So, that feature will only be effective depending on the gambler themselves.

[retreat]

It should be a helpful feature for those who are aware, but for those who are unaware of self-exclusion or whatever feature it is, they will never use it because the use of the feature comes back to each person's awareness. If someone is never aware of their irresponsible gambling activities, they will consider the feature just a display and will never touch it. But for those who know and are aware, they will use the feature to help them overcome their gambling addiction.

[robelneo]

Let's put it this way: this exclusion is for casinos' compliance; in reality, it's a pointless feature. I don't know if this feature saves gamblers, but on my part, I know not one.
The hunger to play is still there, so when that hunger needs to be satisfied, the gambler will play at other casinos. Addiction cannot be addressed by exclusion; they need professional help, and exclusion is the wrong way to stop people from gambling; it's never effective. The casino knows that, but they still include it to satisfy regulators.

[Zigabel]

The helpfulness and usefulness of self exclusion at some point depends on the individual who is trying to gain such and that is because self exclusion does not actually stops you completely from creating a new account using a new details, so it is very possible  that you self exclude and if you lack the discipline, you could se a very juicy fixture or casino game pattern you suspect will turnout a winner and decide to go create a new account just to enable you participate in that game and stand a chance to win and again you have just triggered the addiction or reason you decided to self exclude and it will be a matter of time and you find yourself back at it again.

If only gamblers can respect the self exclusion enough when they apply , then it will be more useful than having multiple accounts and select the one in which you decide to self exclude, at the end of the day you are still gambling only on a new and different account.  It will even be better you didn't go through all of the stress to self exclude.

[Cantsay]

I ain't fan of self-exclusion whether on casinos or exchanges, it never made sense to me, if I don't want to do particular thing, I just stop doing it but I do understand it might not be that simple for addicts and only they know if they find any worth in these measures.

I know it might look pointless because we believe that if people wants to really do something they can do it without any external interference but while that might be true for some people, some also require some sort of help.

There’s a possibility that opting for self-exclusion might help trick the brain to want to actually give up on gambling. I don’t know if you have experienced it, but there are times when I just delete my social media accounts or deactivate them and during that period I don’t feel that urge to scroll through them again, the same could be said for self-exclusion, it could work well for some people while for some it would just be a waste of time.

[acroman08]

Basically, Self-Exclusion works only if the person is already in control! Which is ironic, people who have control don't need this feature.

True, but you need to realise that there are people who still need a little push to control themselves, and self-exclusion could help them with that. Also, those who can control themselves could still benefit from self exclusion feature.

[Findingnemo]

Opening a new account while someone is in their self exclusion is violation of ToS, and if one does that then they risk of losing both the account and whatever the balance locked in the self excluded account. But switching casino that is what people always do. SO it may not save someone who is addicted but might help with someone who got the urge and got few favorite casino to play and if they are self excluded from then then they might not likely to vist new places.

[FirmWars]

Self - exclusion is a protection, it's not pointless, if it was completely pointless, it would not have been introduced in the first place, everyone would not obey self exclusion even after they have logged for it but some will still adhere to it and it will fulfill those advantages that you listed out. So, if we say that self-exclusion is a pointless peature, it means that it is not even serving its purpose while it is actually serving its good purpose to a certain extent. Some people appreciates it because it has helped them stay away from gambling when they were getting addicted, it has also helped them stay un distracted when they needed to take off from gambling, so my opinion is that it is a protection.

[mcdouglasx]

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

It's a useless exclusion function for some and useful for others, because as you rightly say, this barrier is only mental since it's easy to jump over, but it can help trick your own brain with the concept of prohibition. It's like saying I won't pay anymore to watch adult content, or every time I go to the supermarket I won't buy cigarettes. It's basically that, a self-imposed psychological barrier to take care of our well-being and improve our participation in the game.

[Hispo]

I think self-exclusion actually offers some degree of protection for people who are starting to develop problems with gambling and are aware of it. It is a tool intended for people who are self aware and recognize their problems enough, so they can do something about those problems before all goes south.

Those gamblers who are heavily addicted and have no intention to use self-exclusion are not actually the immediate target of those tools, because they would either not use them or gamble on other platforms which do not offer self-exclusion. This is about helping responsible gamblers to stay responsible, instead of trying to reform or rescue addicted people.

It may be pointless of the most of addicted gamblers, but it is not pointless for people who are responsible and start to struggle with the temptation of gambling more than they should.