Self-exclusion: Protection or a Pointless Peature?

[rachael9385]

you've said it all, self exclusion doesn't really break addiction totally because at anytime gamblers can decide to create another gambling account. But what works for one might not work for another so I wouldn't really call oy a pointless feature because some gamblers use it to restrict themselves and it actually works for them. it has a lot to do with discipline and deciding not to gamble for a while

[dunfida]

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.

Self exclusion only works when speed and finality are respected because hesitation is what addiction feeds on. A system that forces people to wait for chat approvals or limits choices to extremes ignores how fragile those moments are. The easier it is to activate the stronger the protection becomes because the decision is acted on before emotion takes control. Temporary locks flexible time frames and instant activation matter more than branding or reputation. When a platform allows reactivation too easily it quietly shifts responsibility back to the user at the worst possible time. A locked period should remain locked regardless of balance or regret because access itself is the trigger. Protection that can be reversed on impulse is not protection it is decoration.

Good responsible gambling tools do not stop people from playing they stop people from harming themselves. Limits that activate with a few clicks reduce friction and remove excuses. Self exclusion should feel firm not negotiable because clarity creates safety. When platforms design these systems properly they show they understand real behavior not just regulations.

[Julien_Olynpic]

Yes, self-exclusion from gaming can be a serious step for an addicted gambler, but this step is more important as a symbolic act, as a commitment to the long journey of overcoming gambling addiction. Everyone knows the downsides of self-exclusion: the main drawback is that the ban isn't absolute and can be easily circumvented. However, every addict typically has a favorite gaming site or several sites, blocking access to which represents an important step for the player.
It's somewhat similar to treatment for depression. You could commit suicide at any moment, but you choose not to because you've embarked on the path to recovery.

[Orpichukwu]

you've said it all, self exclusion doesn't really break addiction totally because at anytime gamblers can decide to create another gambling account. But what works for one might not work for another so I wouldn't really call oy a pointless feature because some gamblers use it to restrict themselves and it actually works for them. it has a lot to do with discipline and deciding not to gamble for a while

We have seen cases where a gambler comes and accuses a casino that they are not helping them get out of addiction even after they have applied for self-exclusion when they themselves are the same people who will create a new account with the same casino and still continue to gamble. The real help here comes from the gambler; if they are not ready yet, no feature will be able to help them.

[famososMuertos]

://:::

Let’s take it one step at a time; it’s a complicated issue. I usually say that the best first step (bet) any gambler can take is to consult a medical professional and get an assessment of their patterns, or whether they show a tendency toward problem gambling.

If someone can do that, they’re the kind of person for whom self‑exclusion works. It’s not something only for those with problems, and in my opinion, that’s the first mistake (or the marketing ploy) that’s been attached to it. This system actually works very well for regular gamblers.

We all go through the classic phases of ‘I’ll win next time’ or ‘just one more try,’ and in those cases the system works well. But it’s useless for someone suffering from gambling addiction.

The best analogy I like to use for this topic is that not even a seatbelt will save you; a problem gambler is driving at 300 km/h.

[TypoTonic]

I think it's a nice feature to have, so I voted for protection. It's already a good sign for someone to be aware or recognize that there are problems, and decide to take action. But I think that this alone won't be enough, since there will definitely be times when you would want to bypass the restriction.

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

IMO, self-exclusion is a good step towards the right path, but of course, no one can overcome any type of addiction alone. That's why they need support from their family or loved ones, or from others who are going through the same thing.

[maydna]

It is protection for gamblers who want to limit their gambling. Using that feature helps them to avoid gambling too often or excessively. They can manage their gambling time and also their money for playing gambling.

But that will only happen if gamblers really want to limit their gambling habit and stay away from gambling addiction. It is why controlling is really important to prevent gambling excessive.

But not many gamblers using this feature because they are still okay with their gambling activity. Gamblers can activate this feature but they still need to control themselves in gambling.

[viljy]

This feature really doesn't do much good for an addicted gambler. The OP analyzed this well in his post. Actually, there is nothing much to add to this. "Self-" does not work if the subject cannot control himself. That is why the control over a subject who has become addicted to gambling should be external. The form in which the control will be carried out is decided by the person who is involved in the treatment. Either this is a psychological impact or just a limitation. Anyway, in any case, treatment involves varying degrees of violence against the patient's personality (which is an effective "key"). To avoid an ambiguous interpretation: even a ban on gambling is already violence. so this does not mean that the patient will be beaten. (In fact, this is the most effective way, although it is illegal).

[Royal Cap]

It is protection for gamblers who want to limit their gambling. Using that feature helps them to avoid gambling too often or excessively. They can manage their gambling time and also their money for playing gambling.

But that will only happen if gamblers really want to limit their gambling habit and stay away from gambling addiction. It is why controlling is really important to prevent gambling excessive.

But not many gamblers using this feature because they are still okay with their gambling activity. Gamblers can activate this feature but they still need to control themselves in gambling.

This type of control doesn't actually stop the gambler but rather forces him to think. Every time he reaches the time or money limit, there is a warning signal that maybe he should stop here. Many times people don't realize this on their own, the truth is that not everyone is addicted, so many don't even use this feature. In my opinion this system is not a barrier, it's like a mirror, bringing your own habits before your eyes. It works best for those who dare to look in that mirror.

[asriloni]

you've said it all, self exclusion doesn't really break addiction totally because at anytime gamblers can decide to create another gambling account. But what works for one might not work for another so I wouldn't really call oy a pointless feature because some gamblers use it to restrict themselves and it actually works for them. it has a lot to do with discipline and deciding not to gamble for a while

It can at least to reduce someone impulse to play in the site he played most, though result is still totally depending on the gambler itself. I know it sounds a pointless feature, but for some people, it's worked. There's always be a reason why this kind of feature being implemented. I remind you solving someone's addiction must be starting from decreasing his routine to play in the site he played most.

[Kelward]

I think that self exclusion is a good feature because it is an attempt to control over gambling but I also know that it is not a total solution to stop addiction however it is still helpful. What works for one gambler to avoid over gambling and addiction won't work for another gambler so if self exclusion helps you as a gambler you should go for it. Whatever strategy a gambler chooses to remain responsible what is important is for them to apply discipline because without self control whatever you put on paper will be pointless. I don't do self exclusion what I do is predetermine how much I want to gamble with and never exceed it.

[sunsilk]

We shouldn't look for what's lack of self exclusion, that's designed exactly for what the casinos need and sees with the demand to at least delay or stop the gamblers from being involved in their platforms.

Each system has a flaw and that's what we're looking for. But what they've made is just exactly what is needed for them to use for their customers.

And that's why for me, it's a good one that anyone can use and it's a start. Because a gambler who's decided to stop by the initiation of it will simply stop. If not, they are not serious and real with their decision to quit and even you have another feature that's complete and flawless, they'll still find a way to gamble.

[bounceback]

~
So is it a Protection or a Pointless Feature?

They may have implemented a self-exclusion feature into their platform to differentiate it from other gambling platforms and attract gamblers to their platform. Some gamblers are attracted to this feature, believing it can prevent further losses if they experience a losing streak. While the self-exclusion feature may temporarily prevent gamblers from stopping gambling on the platform, they fail to realize that there are thousands of other easily accessible gambling platforms that allow gamblers to continue gambling.
Without personal self-awareness, I believe self-exclusion features on gambling platforms will be ineffective.

[davis196]

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.

Self-exclusion isn't entirely useless, but it's not very useful on the other hand. I believe that self-exclusion should be combined with other measures in order to work effectively. All gamblers must conduct KYC before depositing any crypto to the casino. Every gambler, who decides to self-exclude from one casino must be self-excluded from all other casinos. His personal details from his ID card must be added to some kind of centralized blacklist, and he should be blocked from all online casinos. Without such level of centralization, the self-exclusion feature simply doesn't work, because the gambler could signup to another casino. The third-party ID verification providers must be included in such centralized self-exclusion system.

[Raflesia]

Even if this feature existed, I doubt that it would be an effective situation for gamblers.
When the feature is available on every site it is only an option whether to activate the feature or not so it is obviously a bit tricky because activating the feature is up to the gambler's awareness.

As long as they don't activate the feature even if they are already in the addiction stage then it is definitely not very useful because there is no self-awareness of the gambler playing.
But it will be a different story if in the end this is based on ourselves as a benchmark, even if there is no Self-exclusion feature on the site but when our awareness has been formed from the beginning we will definitely try to fortify ourselves and self-exclusion will be much stronger because this is a defense that we create ourselves.

[SamReomo]

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.

I would say that it's not helpful at all because the gamblers aren't on a single casino and if such thing is present in a casino then they'll consider moving to another casino or even by being on that casino but doesn't apply that self exclusion feature.

A gambler who's excited about gambling and playing the games can't control his/her gambling urges and finally he/she will gamble even if there're 10's of such features which somehow stop such a gambler.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I understand why casinos and sportsbooks do it, it’s a feature they offer to protect themselves from lawsuits. It’s quite useless in the sense that an addict will always find a way to gamble, they will exhaust all measures to find somewhere to gamble.

Let’s say punter X loses a lot so activates self exclusion, they then can’t use that individual casino for a while. They then get over the loss and decide to start gambling again but they can’t on that casino for a specific time period. They will just find somewhere else to gamble. It does protect the casino though so for that reason it is good.

[Dr.Osh]

I think it's a useless feature, because most self-excluded gamblers break it by opening an account at a new casino, and it's very easy to do because there are lots of casinos out there, besides that sometimes self-excluding can be a problem, because some people I've seen self-excluding force open their accounts, which causes problems for the casino when they lose.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

you've said it all, self exclusion doesn't really break addiction totally because at anytime gamblers can decide to create another gambling account. But what works for one might not work for another so I wouldn't really call oy a pointless feature because some gamblers use it to restrict themselves and it actually works for them. it has a lot to do with discipline and deciding not to gamble for a while

Most addicted gamblers I have encountered detests that self-exclusion feature because it does not help them in any way, the restriction is one-sided since it prevents gamblers to gamble in just a casino and not in any way stopping the gambler from gambling totally. If a gambler is already disciplined and would not create a new account in another casino, then is there a need to self-exclude yourself?

I am strict on the fact that the self-exclusion of a thing has no much effect, the campaign should be more on upholding discipline as a gambler. If I was a casino owner, I don't think I would include that self-exclusion feature, unless enforced by the law, the aim of that self-exclusion is already defeated.

[noorman0]

-snip-
Let’s say punter X loses a lot so activates self exclusion, they then can’t use that individual casino for a while. They then get over the loss and decide to start gambling again but they can’t on that casino for a specific time period. They will just find somewhere else to gamble. It does protect the casino though so for that reason it is good.

Is there a specific level of self-exclusion? Let's say I only want to submit a self-exclusion ticket on the current casino platform, but it's effective for all casino operators, even if it's a platform without KYC. So it's a kind of unlimited exclusion.

I'm curious to what extent the gambling addict's data is disclosed.