Self-exclusion: Protection or a Pointless Peature?

[iv4n]

For those who don't know what Self-Exclusion is:

Self-exclusion lets players voluntarily block themselves from gambling platforms for a set period — from weeks to years. During this time, you shouldn’t be able to open accounts, deposit, or gamble.

Some would say that Self-Exclusion is a valuable tool:

- Supports responsible play: It gives players an actual mechanism to step away when they recognize they have a problem.

- Can break the cycle of addiction: Blocking access makes the impulsive gambling harder.

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...

- It treats symptoms, not the cause: It doesn't address emotional or psychological reasons for gambling problems.


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

The core contradiction... the paradox:

The people who need self-exclusion the most
are exactly the people who won’t respect it.

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

[Sanitough]

I believe it’s required for every casino to have that feature, but honestly, its real purpose feels almost useless, at least for me, and probably for most of us. At the end of the day, we’re the ones who have to trigger it ourselves.

In theory, if we feel we’re getting addicted, we’re supposed to enable it. But do we actually do that? Most of the time, no. When someone is already addicted, that’s usually the point where they’ve lost proper control anyway. So for me, it feels more like a design requirement or something they just need to show regulators, not something that truly helps gamblers in real situations.

[Alphakilo]

For those who don't know what Self-Exclusion is:

Self-exclusion lets players voluntarily block themselves from gambling platforms for a set period — from weeks to years. During this time, you shouldn’t be able to open accounts, deposit, or gamble.

Some would say that Self-Exclusion is a valuable tool:

- Supports responsible play: It gives players an actual mechanism to step away when they recognize they have a problem.

- Can break the cycle of addiction: Blocking access makes the impulsive gambling harder.

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...

- It treats symptoms, not the cause: It doesn't address emotional or psychological reasons for gambling problems.


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

The core contradiction... the paradox:

The people who need self-exclusion the most
are exactly the people who won’t respect it.

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

I would say it varies from individual to individual because why some would consider this a practical step to reduce their gambling addiction, others would see it as a bandaid that can easily be removed.
Where this would work better is if such an individual is strictly monitored by their partners or close friends when they decide to self exclude themselves from gambling.
Being in a place of boredom and being alone with loud thoughts could help defeat this feature and as such this self exclusion strategy should be applied knowing that one needs to be busy with other things to distract the mind from the urge to gamble.

[Frankolala]

I believe that we have a lot of casinos which one can use to gamble. Going on as self exclusion wouldn't work for an addict or gambler that cannot control himself naturally because he can use the self exclusion button but the moment he's eager to gamble, he will ooen a new account with a different casino and start gambling. So what's the need of it.

[Natalim]

If the purpose of this is to help addicted gamblers, then honestly I don’t think it helps at all. The self-exclusion feature is controlled by the gambler himself. So who exactly do you think will activate it? An addicted gambler stopping himself from gambling? Yeah right.

If it were the casino activating it, then maybe it could help. But the problem is, casinos can’t really tell if someone is addicted or not. They don’t see what’s going on in a gambler’s life.

So in the end, it doesn’t really serve its purpose. To me, it’s basically useless, just something they add to tick a box and say they have it.

[ZeroVinsonN]

It is a step in the right direction, before you can treat a problem you need to first identify what they problem is in the first place and that's more or less what this self exclusion is about but it doesn't necessarily mean you have to permanently stop gambling, it's just a restriction for a limited period of time so having that kind of mindset might make it achievable but it will also put some kind of a strain on the mind of the individual trying to do it, you will wish for time time to end faster and might even end of opening a new account in desperation.
People should just do what works for them is all.

[Oasisman]

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

You have a point, but I think this is a requirement to get a license. I'm not sure about it, but I asked the internet and it suggests that it is a mandatory component for responsible gambling requirements to every casino.
Now, to answer your question, I think yes, It is a pointless feature, if we consider a person is already under control of his gambling expenses, so why the need of self-exclusion feature?  But then again, it is a mandatory requirement. This is like what we see in the box of every cigarette about government warning thats says "cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health". Then why sell it in the first place, right? Lol. These are all pointless.

The only time I could think self exclusion feature would work, is if an addicted gambler decides to reduce their habits and use it for their advantage.

[Die_empty]

I believe that we have a lot of casinos which one can use to gamble. Going on as self exclusion wouldn't work for an addict or gambler that cannot control himself naturally because he can use the self exclusion button but the moment he's eager to gamble, he will ooen a new account with a different casino and start gambling. So what's the need of it.

Self-exclusion without self-control is a waste of time. We live in a time when we have thousands of casinos that can be accessed without any form of restriction. The only character that can shield one from addiction is self-control. Self-exclusion can be potent if the gambler has a special interest in a casino and uses only it. There was a thread in which a gambler was accusing a certain casino of refusing to block his IP address. He was sounding like that casino was the reason he was still addicted. Maybe he has been able to avoid other casinos but a certain one is making it hard to beat addiction. 

[Zadicar]

I believe that we have a lot of casinos which one can use to gamble. Going on as self exclusion wouldn't work for an addict or gambler that cannot control himself naturally because he can use the self exclusion button but the moment he's eager to gamble, he will ooen a new account with a different casino and start gambling. So what's the need of it.

Self-exclusion without self-control is a waste of time. We live in a time when we have thousands of casinos that can be accessed without any form of restriction. The only character that can shield one from addiction is self-control. Self-exclusion can be potent if the gambler has a special interest in a casino and uses only it. There was a thread in which a gambler was accusing a certain casino of refusing to block his IP address. He was sounding like that casino was the reason he was still addicted. Maybe he has been able to avoid other casinos but a certain one is making it hard to beat addiction. 

Self exclusion looks strong on paper but weak in reality when the root problem is untouched. Clicking a button does not change desire. When the urge returns the path of least resistance appears and that path is simply another casino another app another account. In a market flooded with platforms access is never the real barrier. Behavior is. That is why exclusion without internal commitment feels hollow. Self control is the real firewall but it is also the hardest to build. Addiction does not respect rules that are external only. When someone blames a single casino for their continued gambling they are outsourcing responsibility. Blocking one door does not matter when the house has a thousand entrances. That frustration often comes from wanting relief without confrontation. It is easier to fight a platform than to face an impulse.

Self exclusion does have value but only in a narrow context. It works best when paired with intent and structure. If someone is genuinely trying to stop then removing familiar triggers helps. Familiarity creates comfort and comfort feeds habit. Cutting off a preferred environment can reduce frequency and intensity. In that sense exclusion is a support tool not a solution. It buys time rather than cures behavior.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

It's pointless since gamblers are only restricted on a particular site and not from gambling itself and they can choose to register accounts on other sites and continue playing. It's indirectly rejecting clients on your site and giving them to others.

As you rightly said, those that can use the self-exclusion feature positively would be disciplined enough not to gamble elsewhere and I doubt these kind of people cannot control themselves in the first place.

[Oshosondy]

For people that know the in and out of online crypto gambling, self-exclusion is rubbish and can not be effective for such a person. The person can easily open an account on another gambling site. He can even use another sim card or virtual sim to open another account on a noKYC gambling site and put the old account in disuse. The best self-exclusion comes from a discipline mind.

[giammangiato]

The core contradiction... the paradox:

The people who need self-exclusion the most
are exactly the people who won’t respect it.

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

There have been several discussions about self-exclusion. I can tell you that it's not an effective method at all. You can also limit your account from the platforms, but that doesn't change.
An effective method that I recommend to everyone is the one I have been adopting for years, I have two simple rules, manage your time and money, how?
Determine how much time you need to spend on gaming in a week, and each gaming session, set an amount you can spend weekly without EVER exceeding the limit.
Personally my weekly budget is $10 and I NEVER get past a game session of more than 30 minutes no matter what I win or lose I close the game.
You have to have an iron mentality to do this, if you can you will have the chance to play without losing a lot of money (in case you get the loss rounds) also you are very likely to get results without destroying your economy.

[joniboini]

Even if we say it's pointless, what then? Do you think casino should remove them and let people play without worries? I'm sure they'd be more than happy to do that, but will the government allow that to happen? How will they claim they're doing something to help people from developing addiction? Making a database of KYC-ed users from every site and blocking them on their own? That would be worse (although maybe they already request such data from licensed casino in one way or another).

From the user's POV, we know that self-control relies on our own. When your relationship is a customer-seller relationship, expecting the seller to help stop their products earnestly is a bit naive.

[TopTort777]

I find self-exclusion as a pointless feature. In topics with similar ideas, it was told that gambler can not exclude from himself from every single casino on the world. This makes this feature useless, because gambler can always find and register on new casino. It can protect gambler once (if he hadnt figured out to find new casino) or for few minutes only. I have already told that the best protection from excess gambling is giving money to your wife

[bubilas]

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

Self-exclusion from online and land-based casinos, as well as from bank loans, is a very useful feature that allows gambling addicts to understand that even if they get into trouble by borrowing from friends, they will certainly not reach the point where they incur debts to banks, microfinance institutions, and other organizations. Understand that the point here is that the gambler knows in advance that they won't be allowed into a casino and won't be able to borrow much, and it is this awareness that allows them to avoid starting a new cycle of gambling addiction.
And this is definitely a good solution from a legal perspective.

[_act_]

Self-exclusion from online and land-based casinos, as well as from bank loans, is a very useful feature that allows gambling addicts to understand that even if they get into trouble by borrowing from friends, they will certainly not reach the point where they incur debts to banks, microfinance institutions, and other organizations. Understand that the point here is that the gambler knows in advance that they won't be allowed into a casino and won't be able to borrow much, and it is this awareness that allows them to avoid starting a new cycle of gambling addiction.
And this is definitely a good solution from a legal perspective.

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.

Self-exclusion can be effective on land-based casinos but not effective on online game sites. There is not regulation yet that can make it effective on online gambling sites.

[swogerino]

For those who don't know what Self-Exclusion is:

Self-exclusion lets players voluntarily block themselves from gambling platforms for a set period — from weeks to years. During this time, you shouldn’t be able to open accounts, deposit, or gamble.

Some would say that Self-Exclusion is a valuable tool:

- Supports responsible play: It gives players an actual mechanism to step away when they recognize they have a problem.

- Can break the cycle of addiction: Blocking access makes the impulsive gambling harder.

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...

- It treats symptoms, not the cause: It doesn't address emotional or psychological reasons for gambling problems.


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

The core contradiction... the paradox:

The people who need self-exclusion the most
are exactly the people who won’t respect it.

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

I think it is protection at least in my specific personal case. I have opted for self-exclusion in the major casinos I play at and normally it takes about 6 months before you can try and contact support to re-establish your account when you have chosen an indefinite amount of time in your exclusion. Now someone may say that this is pointless as you can open a new account in a new casino yet I think when you finish the top 3-5 preferred casinos you would not bother to open new accounts in new casinos as you don't know how trusted you are. So based on this assumption I can say that despite many people not liking it for me it is a good protection feature.

[TopTort777]

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

Self-exclusion from online and land-based casinos, as well as from bank loans, is a very useful feature that allows gambling addicts to understand that even if they get into trouble by borrowing from friends, they will certainly not reach the point where they incur debts to banks, microfinance institutions, and other organizations. Understand that the point here is that the gambler knows in advance that they won't be allowed into a casino and won't be able to borrow much, and it is this awareness that allows them to avoid starting a new cycle of gambling addiction.
And this is definitely a good solution from a legal perspective.

Dude, you can exclude yourself from bc.game, but you will still be able to register at Earnbet and gamble. How self-exclusion feature can be useful then? You will be safe from addiction for few minutes only If that time be enough to change your mind and decide not to gamble today, then you are a lucky person.

[joeperry]

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

It's actually not. For me, it's one of the good feature of the casino that shows they somewhat care about the player, compared to gambling site that doesn't have this feature. We all know that not all of people are capable of excluding themselves from gambling but there will be some people who are aware and will definitely use this feature, some gambling sites didn't even include this feature even though they know that there are people who are going to be addicted to their site. I understand you OP that in order to use this you need to become self aware and you want to do this voluntary, however even if it is not voluntary there's a lot of gambling sites they can play with and it's really on the person itself how to be responsible. So even if the gambling site ban them for being addicted, the player can just change site, and if they do that it would look bad for the platform since it's easy to accuse anyone being addicted and claim they just helping the player.

[VashaUdacha777]

Hi )

I think this feature is pointless. What’s the point of self-exclusion? I can exclude myself on one site and five minutes later register on another one. Self-exclusion has to be done in your own head. If you think that clicking the self-exclusion button on a casino website will solve all your problems, you’re mistaken. The problem is in your mind.