Self-exclusion: Protection or a Pointless Peature?

[PrivacyG]

It can be very useful if you use it properly or it can be useless if you will only use it as an excuse.  I suppose you limited your screen time by deciding to place your phone on a table and leaving it there for the day at least once in your life simply because you wanted a break.  That is 'self exclusion' applied to screen time.  You could always get your phone back if you want to, but the point is exactly that.  Imposing limits to your self.  If you know you are going to bypass the limit by creating other accounts on other platforms then what is the point of even limiting the first account in the first place.

[r_victory]

I believe it's simply an obligation for casinos to provide this feature. For me, it's pointless; a person can create another account later, gamble at a different casino, or use someone else to open an account. I don't think it effectively solves the problem of addiction in general.

It can be very useful if you use it properly or it can be useless if you will only use it as an excuse.  I suppose you limited your screen time by deciding to place your phone on a table and leaving it there for the day at least once in your life simply because you wanted a break.  That is 'self exclusion' applied to screen time.  You could always get your phone back if you want to, but the point is exactly that.  Imposing limits to your self.  If you know you are going to bypass the limit by creating other accounts on other platforms then what is the point of even limiting the first account in the first place.

That's the point. Using it as an excuse. If someone wants to take a break, they can simply not access the casino. Self-exclusion won't make the real problem go away; it's much more complex than simply deleting an account.

[mindrust]

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?

You summed it up perfectly. If you need self-exclusion, you have a serious problem that can't be fixed via self-exclusion. It means, even if you enable self-exclusion, you'll find a way to gamble again and blame the casino for your failure to avoid playing again.

Healthy people don't need any of this. When they sense any danger, they stop playing. They don't enable self-exclusion because they don't need it and never needed it. It is the same for other habits when you think about it. Smokers for example... There are two types of smokers. Some of the smoke rarely, during events or once, twice a day at most. Sometimes they don't smoke for weeks, even months. The other type, they smoke at least a pack of cigs every damn day and they always find an excuse to keep smoking even though their health is a mess. Replace smoking with any other habit and you'll always see the same pattern.

[PrivacyG]

Healthy people don't need any of this. When they sense any danger, they stop playing. They don't enable self-exclusion because they don't need it and never needed it. It is the same for other habits when you think about it. Smokers for example... There are two types of smokers. Some of the smoke rarely, during events or once, twice a day at most. Sometimes they don't smoke for weeks, even months. The other type, they smoke at least a pack of cigs every damn day and they always find an excuse to keep smoking even though their health is a mess. Replace smoking with any other habit and you'll always see the same pattern.

I actually believe most of these people would have a significant change in their addiction if they admitted it was a problem in the first place.  If you want to understand it is a problem, it is so much easier to say 'no'.  But making excuses is much more simple, even if it is stupid.  You will obviously not say 'no' to another cigarette if you do not even want to admit it is an issue.

[AmoreJaz]

It can be very useful if you use it properly or it can be useless if you will only use it as an excuse.  I suppose you limited your screen time by deciding to place your phone on a table and leaving it there for the day at least once in your life simply because you wanted a break.  That is 'self exclusion' applied to screen time.  You could always get your phone back if you want to, but the point is exactly that.  Imposing limits to your self.  If you know you are going to bypass the limit by creating other accounts on other platforms then what is the point of even limiting the first account in the first place.

Self-discipline is your enemy here. That is true, the control will always depend on your actions. Because the temptations will always be there and it is your prerogative what to do in front of those temptations. No one else can stop your desires but yourself. So even if you opt for self-exclusion in a casino, if you will sign-up in other casinos, your effort to self-exclude from the first casino is just futile. Now, you need to contemplate on what you really want to achieve when it comes to self-exclusion.

[MRY]

It can be very useful if you use it properly or it can be useless if you will only use it as an excuse.  I suppose you limited your screen time by deciding to place your phone on a table and leaving it there for the day at least once in your life simply because you wanted a break.  That is 'self exclusion' applied to screen time.  You could always get your phone back if you want to, but the point is exactly that.  Imposing limits to your self.  If you know you are going to bypass the limit by creating other accounts on other platforms then what is the point of even limiting the first account in the first place.

Self-discipline is your enemy here. That is true, the control will always depend on your actions. Because the temptations will always be there and it is your prerogative what to do in front of those temptations. No one else can stop your desires but yourself. So even if you opt for self-exclusion in a casino, if you will sign-up in other casinos, your effort to self-exclude from the first casino is just futile. Now, you need to contemplate on what you really want to achieve when it comes to self-exclusion.

Deprovaluation of playing in one place, is trifling when you voluntarily run away to another just to fulfil your curiosity. Change should focus on ourselves because we are the only ones in a position to stop the stop button permanently. External instruments can only work when supported by one strength of will not to gamble in any way. It is consistency in action that we have to pay to get out of the snare of the illusion of false victory.

[Sammye3]

This is a good action for gamblers restrictions against addiction, but the real question is "will gamblers lose total access to gamble even from another sources"?

It's totally useless when the gamblers lack self discipline, because it could have only but a little impact for the short term but it would only be a matter of time untill they go back to old ways.

To identify that they are addicted to gambling and they become conscious of the effects of aggressive gambling, it would help with the self awareness to put in efforts to stop such unhealthy practices so self exclusion could be helpful but not for long, self discipline is fully functional

[Mrbluntzy]

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...

I will quote myself about the same thing I said just yesterday. Addiction problem can not be cured alone by this and other methods but it is reliant on the gambler too, self exclusion is also a method that could prevent addiction but it is too simple the way it's designed, the gamblers can bypass it easily if they want but the casino can not make it more hard for the gambler because if they do, it will also reduce their customers.

Some people can decide to take self exclusion but if it becomes tough on them, they will open a new account and still continue to gamble. If casinos would force players to be responsible, then they would have to be strict and it could cause them have reduction in profit.

[avp2306]

This is a good action for gamblers restrictions against addiction, but the real question is "will gamblers lose total access to gamble even from another sources"?

It's totally useless when the gamblers lack self discipline, because it could have only but a little impact for the short term but it would only be a matter of time untill they go back to old ways.

To identify that they are addicted to gambling and they become conscious of the effects of aggressive gambling, it would help with the self awareness to put in efforts to stop such unhealthy practices so self exclusion could be helpful but not for long, self discipline is fully functional

It might be helpful action to reduce the activity of the gambler and it can possibly lower down his participation to gamble on his favorite or usual places. But if they don't have will to stop they really have this tendency to continue and they might register on other platform.

So overall that action will reduce certain pressure, but it actually not going to help if the person will not totally avoid playing on other casino. Acknowledging their current situation is help and try to cooperate with his love ones towards creating best solution to help them get away with addiction. If professional help is needed then better go to those people because for sure he can get great assessment and find best solution on how to solve his addiction issues.

[SmartGold01]

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 am only replying to this section of your question; Self-exclusion is very important to casinos especially when people are in needs of using their self-exclusion section due to much loses or they are finding it difficult to quit gambling, they can use it to stop them from gambling, in fact any gambling site that knows what they are doing they should be able to stop sending those users who had already made used of their self-exclusion promotional mails as it could trigger them again to start gambling.
Self-exclusion works perfectly depending on individuals to how addictive to could be while gambling because there are some people who are known to be chronic gamblers, this people even though they makes use of the self exclusions they wouldn't mind going to the next casino to make account especially when they had any news that someone made a life time changing opportunity that is when you would see them being triggered to continue gambling again.

[Nwada001]

For an addicted gambler, self-exclusion is just a total waste of time. They can set the rules today and exclude themselves from one casino, and when that urge to gamble comes to them again, they will either create a new account with the same casino or they will move to another one.

The only place where self-exclusion could be considered useful is if it's in a physical casino where the person will be restricted from gambling in all the casinos in the city, and it still won't be that effective if the gambler is not ready to change.

[nelson4lov]

Self exclusion wasn't made to be the all-in-one solution to stopping gambling. It's one of the many tools that are available for any one or addict that is serious about minimizing their exposure to gambling. I had a friend that decided not to trade anymore until next year but two days ago, he took out a huge chunk out of his savings and went all in on a trade qnd unfortunately, the trade went sideways. While I do feel bad for him, I do think that a feature like self exclusion would come in handy. If the process to get an account back to good standing is tedious, they might reconsider in the process of trying to get their gambling account operational again.

It's one of the many tools that can be utilized. You can use it or not. It's really that simple. However, using it is +EV.

[freedomgo]

Self exclusion wasn't made to be the all-in-one solution to stopping gambling. It's one of the many tools that are available for any one or addict that is serious about minimizing their exposure to gambling.

Do you really think an addict would stop themselves just because they see a self-exclusion option? I highly doubt many people actually use that. An addict is someone who keeps looking for more gambling, not ways to limit it. If they’re already addicted, there’s almost zero chance they’ll voluntarily click that self-exclusion button. That’s just not how addiction works.

[GxSTxV]

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

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 have a different opinion, and see it a bit differently. Self-exclusion can be effective in certain situations especially when someone is still aware of hisbehavior. For example, if a player notices the cycle of chasing losses in one game and knows they might spend more than they can afford that day, self exclusion plays as a forced pause and prevents more spending in that period.

It’s similar to quitting smoking or other habits whdere some psychologists say forcing distance helps by leaving the environment for example or removing access or even destroying the tool to the habit. It’s not a magic solution but it can be a real protective layer for people who are trying to regain control, even if not fully have it yet.

So I can say it’s a protection for some people in specific moments not pointless, just not for everyone.

[Miles2006]

Self exclusion is actually important, aside the usual statistic given certainly many still make use of the self exclusion at least this stands as a means to quit for a while forcefully. From my perspective this strategy can be effective when an individual engage in other activity mostly a busy activity for example; work activity, vacation, seminar etc. I think anyone who goes back is yet not ready to quit rather they’re looking for other means to get back fully and from my observation people who intend to get overly addicted don’t quit so easy, if they get a second chance to gamble again they become more worst compared to previous time.

[Jody.Drummer]

I think this feature is great for reducing or preventing gambling addiction, but I'm not sure all casinos offer it, and those that don't yet might update and make it available. However, I think it's quite difficult for people with multiple accounts. For example, someone might have two casinos they prefer when gambling, one with the feature and the other without. They might activate the feature on one casino, but they can't activate it on the second because it's not yet available. This still leaves open the possibility of continued gambling. However, I think casinos that do offer this feature are doing a good job, as they are indirectly taking care of their users.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Self exclusion is actually important, aside the usual statistic given certainly many still make use of the self exclusion at least this stands as a means to quit for a while forcefully. From my perspective this strategy can be effective when an individual engage in other activity mostly a busy activity for example; work activity, vacation, seminar etc.

If all the casino can enforce this law of self exclusion feature, it will be very effective. If someone sign up for self exclusion, they don't even need to keep their self busy in other activities, if they activate the self exclusion service, they won't be allowed to gamble until the time has expire. The only chance they have is to create account in another casino that has not enforce the self exclusion and if the person does that, it means that he or she is not even ready to address any gambling issues they are facing.