Self-exclusion: Protection or a Pointless Peature?

[panjul07]

I'd say that self exclusion feature is just a small help for gamblers who want to start moving away from gambling because the next steps will be harder.
Whether it is pointless or useful, it depends on the gamblers but I cant say that this feature is pointless because it may help gamblers as a reminder.
On the other side, I cant also say that it is a full protection for gamblers because you have mentioned yourself that it is still easy to bypass this feature if the gamblers themselves are unable to follow up the exclusion with the next steps.

[Findingnemo]

If all the casino can enforce this law of self exclusion feature, it will be very effective.

Why would they even enforce it? Try checking the casino you’re using, the feature is probably already there, you just haven’t activated it. The casino’s job is only to make that option available. Enforcement isn’t really their responsibility.

In the end, it’s still the gambler’s judgment whether to activate it or not.
And for sure most won’t, because people rarely see themselves as addicted in the first place.

Enabling self exclusion is the user's choice and casinos are mandated to have that feature as part of their operating guideliness. But they won't even promote it because it reduces their profits and it's business so it's our responsibility to what the features exists. But if someone self excluded them and still want to gamble then it is going to be an issue and casino can block, ban and take away all their balance from both the accounts for violation of terms.

[yahoo62278]

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 100% think it's pointless, not because it couldn't be useful and possibly save someone from losing their ass, but because of the reasons you stated. It's super easy to switch casinos and bypass the fact that you have blocked yourself on a platform.

I have a referral whom I have under me at gamdom. He will call me at all times of the night because he blocked his self from Gamdom and now needs a new casino to play on. He trusts my judgement 100% and I answer his calls at anytime because he is a VIP. It's a repeating cycle and he eventually blocks himself on the new casino and wants a new place to play on. He isn't losing either, he has a superstition I guess and doesn't wanna lose it all back.

Regardless of what the player believes, it just proves that self exclusion is useless.

[TopTort777]

Self-exclusion feature is like deleting web browser and hope that it will protect from viruses and hackers Not only a gambler can more to other casino and gamble there, but he can open another account on same casino he has self-excluded himself. There are so many ways to bypass that feature. I think it was done by casinos because authorities forced them to do something to prevent addiction. Casinos made that useless feature and claim that they have done something

[aioc]

Self-inclusion only works if you are dedicated to a single casino and have no intention of playing at other casinos. But if you have no control over your addiction and the urge is more than you can control, you will end up exploring other casinos, and that will lead you to play more and become more addicted because you are now playing in more casinos.
So it's really pointless if you don't have control over your urges; gamblers will gamble if they have money, and they will find a way to gamble, so self-inclusion is useless.

[cryptomaniac_xxx]

I wouldn't say that it's pointless, it will still serves it's purpose. As long as the gamblers won't go back and the casinos will be true to their words that once they see this account or this IP addresses, they will have to question the person itself.

But the thing is that we have seen gamblers trying to test the casinos self-inclusion and then register again.

Then blame the casino's if they've lost huge money. So I guess it will only work if both parties are willing to do their part.

[Fortify]

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.

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

It's helpful in very particular situations and it does rely on the mindset of the gambler. Take poker for example, if someone feels like they have an addiction with this method of gambling, it might actually be easier to stop or at least make so boring that it puts them off. There are a few sites out there which are able to draw in most of the players, with the remainder fighting for scraps and unable to sustain a big enough player base to be attractive. If any big site offers a decent self exclusion mechanism, even for 3 or 6 months, it is going to severely limit the attractive options for the person who is self excluding and they might just choose to quit altogether once they cannot go back on these larger sites. But it does all require on having the willpower to quit first.

[MRY]

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.

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

It's helpful in very particular situations and it does rely on the mindset of the gambler. Take poker for example, if someone feels like they have an addiction with this method of gambling, it might actually be easier to stop or at least make so boring that it puts them off. There are a few sites out there which are able to draw in most of the players, with the remainder fighting for scraps and unable to sustain a big enough player base to be attractive. If any big site offers a decent self exclusion mechanism, even for 3 or 6 months, it is going to severely limit the attractive options for the person who is self excluding and they might just choose to quit altogether once they cannot go back on these larger sites. But it does all require on having the willpower to quit first.

You are correct in that will power is the major niche before the external support mechanisms can do their best in everyone. Access control using some functionalities is a sure way of ensuring that we do not get into harm risky regions. I have realised that the ability to reduce the choices can compel the mind to discover other and much more productive things. In this way, we unconsciously create a good wall around us in order to insure the future against the possible deadly losses.

[avp2306]

I wouldn't say that it's pointless, it will still serves it's purpose. As long as the gamblers won't go back and the casinos will be true to their words that once they see this account or this IP addresses, they will have to question the person itself.

But the thing is that we have seen gamblers trying to test the casinos self-inclusion and then register again.

Then blame the casino's if they've lost huge money. So I guess it will only work if both parties are willing to do their part.

Somehow it can help people to make realize that their gambling participation is already done after they decide to exclude their selves and take down their account on the casino on which he usually play.

People might really think not coming because he don't have account on that platform.

Maybe some people say its not helping gamblers since they can register new account or sign up to other ones, but doing self exclusion is actually one of good step done by gamblers to slowly get out on gambling and limit their exposure on this activities.

[Finestream]

Maybe some people say its not helping gamblers since they can register new account or sign up to other ones, but doing self exclusion is actually one of good step done by gamblers to slowly get out on gambling and limit their exposure on this activities.

yeah that’s exactly it. Even if you self-exclude on one casino, with thousands of casinos out there you can easily fool yourself and just move to another one. Creating a new account is so easy, most don’t even require KYC just to gamble.

So if you’re not really serious about using it, that feature is basically worthless. It’s meant for addicts, but the problem is addicts aren’t thinking straight in the first place.

[bhadz]

I still believe that it is a protection because there are gamblers that just after one try of this feature and they're already okay and will follow what it is intended for. But if a gambler is a certain addict, they'll surely bypass this feature and that's the reason why it won't be good for them to use any of these tools because the symptoms are there and, it's already a personal problem that they have to solve on their own. At least with these casinos that have self exclusion feature, they're not removing the possibility that it can be used by any of their customers for their own help.

[Patikno]

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...

Personally, I think self-exclusion is still necessary for people who want to stop gambling, whether temporarily or permanently. However, this feature won't be useful if someone doesn't have a strong determination to stop gambling, which means they can still bypass the feature, as OP said, or maybe they could ask the casino to remove the self-exclusion status. So, I think this feature should be utilized properly, which means we should respect our own decisions if we activate it. Even if we want to return to gambling, we should be able to reactivate it when we have made peace with ourselves (or have learned to control our gambling).

By the way, I think the OP mistyped the topic title; it should be "Feature". The spacing between the letters "p" and "f" on a QWERTY keyboard is quite a distance, am I mistaken or misunderstanding? Cmiiw.

[Natalim]

I still believe that it is a protection because there are gamblers that just after one try of this feature and they're already okay and will follow what it is intended for. But if a gambler is a certain addict, they'll surely bypass this feature and that's the reason why it won't be good for them to use any of these tools because the symptoms are there and, it's already a personal problem that they have to solve on their own. At least with these casinos that have self exclusion feature, they're not removing the possibility that it can be used by any of their customers for their own help.

It’s not totally useless, but it also doesn’t really solve the addiction problem. Just look at it this way, if I really didn’t want to gamble anymore, I wouldn’t even log in. I could just forget the username and password and that’s it. Self-exclusion is only temporary anyway, you set it for days or months.

And since there are tons of casinos out there, you can self-exclude from one casino today and open an account on another one tomorrow. So you’re still gambling, just on a different platform. That’s why it doesn’t fully fix the problem at all.

[MRY]

I still believe that it is a protection because there are gamblers that just after one try of this feature and they're already okay and will follow what it is intended for. But if a gambler is a certain addict, they'll surely bypass this feature and that's the reason why it won't be good for them to use any of these tools because the symptoms are there and, it's already a personal problem that they have to solve on their own. At least with these casinos that have self exclusion feature, they're not removing the possibility that it can be used by any of their customers for their own help.

You are correct, these tools are actually still useful to the individuals able to think clearly in making major decisions. Although they are not so effective in case of severe sufferers, it must be admitted that it is much better to have these means than none at all. I think the presence of such aspects provides us with space to run away in an instant to prevent the situation. The resolution of internal issues is important to any tool to be used to the best.

[serjent05]

So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

Self exclusion feature is to protect people who are still in control of their gambling to continuously engage in gambling until they become addicted.  In short, self-exclusion is a fail-safe button if one feel that their gambling habit is getting out of control. 

So I believe that self-exclusion is another layer of protection for people from gambling addiction.

[bhadz]

I still believe that it is a protection because there are gamblers that just after one try of this feature and they're already okay and will follow what it is intended for. But if a gambler is a certain addict, they'll surely bypass this feature and that's the reason why it won't be good for them to use any of these tools because the symptoms are there and, it's already a personal problem that they have to solve on their own. At least with these casinos that have self exclusion feature, they're not removing the possibility that it can be used by any of their customers for their own help.

It’s not totally useless, but it also doesn’t really solve the addiction problem. Just look at it this way, if I really didn’t want to gamble anymore, I wouldn’t even log in. I could just forget the username and password and that’s it. Self-exclusion is only temporary anyway, you set it for days or months.

And since there are tons of casinos out there, you can self-exclude from one casino today and open an account on another one tomorrow. So you’re still gambling, just on a different platform. That’s why it doesn’t fully fix the problem at all.

It is not solving actual addiction but it's a way to restrict an already addicted gambler. I agree with your example if someone really wants to quit their addiction, they won't log in. IMO, any measures that's being done to reduce someone's impact of addiction, they're a good help to anyone who might come across with it. In the end, the discipline is still on us and these helps are there for its availability.

I still believe that it is a protection because there are gamblers that just after one try of this feature and they're already okay and will follow what it is intended for. But if a gambler is a certain addict, they'll surely bypass this feature and that's the reason why it won't be good for them to use any of these tools because the symptoms are there and, it's already a personal problem that they have to solve on their own. At least with these casinos that have self exclusion feature, they're not removing the possibility that it can be used by any of their customers for their own help.

You are correct, these tools are actually still useful to the individuals able to think clearly in making major decisions. Although they are not so effective in case of severe sufferers, it must be admitted that it is much better to have these means than none at all. I think the presence of such aspects provides us with space to run away in an instant to prevent the situation. The resolution of internal issues is important to any tool to be used to the best.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Better to have that readily available than having nothing at all and blame the casinos that they do not have any features to exclude users who are likely to get addicted.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

I think self exclusion is a great feature, unfortunately several sites don't execute it properly. Some sites only let you self exclude 7 days in 1 month and your other choice would be permanent (betfury), others let you reactivate your account too easy. I also don't like it when you have to contact support to get self excluded. There should be a simple button you can click to make this happen. Waiting for chat only delays it and might cost the player a lot since every minute counts in cases like this.
Stake for example did it great. Self exclusion is available for 1 day until whenever, 2 clicks away from happening. Chat support can also personalize the time frame. Also, the have loss/wager/deposit limits you can activate which are running for at least 24 hours minimum, 2 clicks and this is done. While I am not a fan of stake anymore their responsible gambling features are truly top notch I must admit!

[Bitcoin Smith]

I think self exclusion is a great feature, unfortunately several sites don't execute it properly. Some sites only let you self exclude 7 days in 1 month and your other choice would be permanent (betfury), others let you reactivate your account too easy. I also don't like it when you have to contact support to get self excluded. There should be a simple button you can click to make this happen. Waiting for chat only delays it and might cost the player a lot since every minute counts in cases like this.
Stake for example did it great. Self exclusion is available for 1 day until whenever, 2 clicks away from happening. Chat support can also personalize the time frame. Also, the have loss/wager/deposit limits you can activate which are running for at least 24 hours minimum, 2 clicks and this is done. While I am not a fan of stake anymore their responsible gambling features are truly top notch I must admit!

I have never self excluded myself from any gambling site but as you are saying there should be an easy self exclude me button for x days instead of contacting the support and wait for the things to happen. And also if once the self exclusion period is locked it should be there no matter what because everything can stay and if one trying to self exclude with remaining balance then it is their concern if they trying to access their funds back after the self exclusion and ore often with such personality the person will wager again and lose all the money.

[Darker45]

Not entirely pointless, but it surely isn't for everybody who's having a hard time resisting that urge. It's probably for those whose urge remains irresistible however difficult. In the first place, you wouldn't block yourself if your addiction is already beyond control.

So, it may be pointless in certain cases but probably not in all. To those who have little control left in them, it's indeed a protection. But to those who badly need professional intervention, it may be of no use anymore.

[m2017]

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.

Why not? If it allows you to (at least) temporarily distance yourself from gambling and "get your head straight", then this tool is quite good.

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

Sometimes this is exactly what gamblers need to take a “break” and get back to normal life.

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...

For such overly addicted gamblers, only complete isolation from gambling, and possibly even from their PC, smartphone, and internet, will help.

In fact, a serious gambling addict cannot be "saved" from the outside by isolating them from casinos until they recognize their situation and are willing to change their life. Otherwise, they will always seek (and find) ways to access gambling.

Self-exclusion is like a small decorative fence in front of your house, preventing gambling, rather than a ten-foot concrete wall on the way to the casino. Therefore, anyone who wants to can easily jump over it.

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

Because self-exclusion shouldn't be seen as a therapy for overcoming gambling addiction. It's "not a cure", but a "preventative measure". In other words, in severe cases of gambling addiction, self-exclusion won't help, and other, more "hard medications" are needed.

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

It's better to say that self-exclusion works best when a gambler begins to feel a "slight discomfort" from the gaming process. That is, in the early stages of gambling addiction (or excessive gambling, if that's what you prefer to call it).

The core contradiction... the paradox:

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

Because such people need outside help. From professionals.