Self-exclusion: Protection or a Pointless Peature?

[Natalim]

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

I think that amount is really set by the gamblers themselves. Every casino has different rules for self-exclusion, but the purpose is basically the same. In the casino I used before, there wasn’t even an option where you set how much you’re willing to lose before self-exclusion kicks in.

It was all manual. You choose to activate it yourself, then select how long you want to be self-excluded. Once it’s activated, you can’t undo it. You just have to wait until the period expires.

[noorman0]

I think that amount is really set by the gamblers themselves. Every casino has different rules for self-exclusion, but the purpose is basically the same. In the casino I used before, there wasn’t even an option where you set how much you’re willing to lose before self-exclusion kicks in.

It was all manual. You choose to activate it yourself, then select how long you want to be self-excluded. Once it’s activated, you can’t undo it. You just have to wait until the period expires.

I mean, when a user submits a self-exclusion ticket while the user has kyc, can the ticket be forwarded to all casino operators or up to the game provider so that the user does not have to go through the process again? I just read the Stake version tutorial and didn't find the option I was referring to, it only offers exclusions with time periods.

[arwin100]

I think that amount is really set by the gamblers themselves. Every casino has different rules for self-exclusion, but the purpose is basically the same. In the casino I used before, there wasn’t even an option where you set how much you’re willing to lose before self-exclusion kicks in.

It was all manual. You choose to activate it yourself, then select how long you want to be self-excluded. Once it’s activated, you can’t undo it. You just have to wait until the period expires.

I mean, when a user submits a self-exclusion ticket while the user has kyc, can the ticket be forwarded to all casino operators or up to the game provider so that the user does not have to go through the process again? I just read the Stake version tutorial and didn't find the option I was referring to, it only offers exclusions with time periods.

If you choose to self exclude yourself on one casino only this will only apply on the casino where you decide to erase your account.

But if you go to government regulatory program and ask yourself to be excluded on all casinos then you might not access all regulated casinos in their jurisdiction.

See this UKGamstop self exclusion program https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/contact-us/guide/page/self-exclusion-with-gamstop maybe this can help those gamblers want to quit gambling.

[Accardo]

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.

Self exclusion is a feature that assists players who are willing to avoid gambling stay out of the habit for a while. When a gambler is not yet willing or didn't conclude within their mind that they're done with gaming or wants to take a break, it'll be hard for such features to be useful even when applied. Casinos do have a way to tackle compulsive gaming, which may be the reason why the gamer is blaming the house for not coming to his aid. However, what the house does, which is, terminating the player from using any online casino, do fail at the availability of high level internet proxies, that helps people bypass bans and restrictions.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

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.

As I said enforce, I mean to add the feature to their casino, there are some casino or bookies that have not added the feature yet, so if all the casino can add it and make it in such a way that once you activate a self exclusion option, even if you create an account on another casino or bookies, you will not be allowed to gamble because the service had shared your information with other casinos so that they won't allow you to gamble.

[Smartprofit]

From my experience with gambling addiction, I know that volitional abstinence from gambling doesn't work. Unfortunately... "Self-exclusion" is essentially a volitional abstinence from gambling. Yes, this abstinence is reinforced by technical blocking, but at its core, the entire process is rooted in the act of volitional abstinence from gambling.💁

And here, in my opinion, lies the mental trap. Gambling addiction is a very deep psychological process. This process is practically unregulated by a person's willpower. Gambling addiction can only be "cheated" (at least, that's what I came to during my struggle with gambling addiction). I recovered from gambling addiction by creating another, weaker addiction. That is, I didn't follow the path of "self-exclusion." "Self-exclusion" actually leaves a void in the soul... And what do you do with that void? But in practice, bypassing "self-exclusion" is not at all difficult.  Therefore, I don't consider this method of combating gambling addiction a panacea. However, I am willing to admit that it can be combined with other methods. 🙋

[Bitcoin Smith]

~
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.

But from the casino's perspective, they are about to lose a potential active user, so delaying in any possible way to keep them engaged is kind of ethical in the business principles.

But as many others said, self exclusion can be bypassed easily when the user doesn't have the strong will to quit on themselves then why casino wants to leave the opportunity for their competitor to get one more customer...

[lionheart78]

I think that amount is really set by the gamblers themselves. Every casino has different rules for self-exclusion, but the purpose is basically the same. In the casino I used before, there wasn’t even an option where you set how much you’re willing to lose before self-exclusion kicks in.

It was all manual. You choose to activate it yourself, then select how long you want to be self-excluded. Once it’s activated, you can’t undo it. You just have to wait until the period expires.

I mean, when a user submits a self-exclusion ticket while the user has kyc, can the ticket be forwarded to all casino operators or up to the game provider so that the user does not have to go through the process again? I just read the Stake version tutorial and didn't find the option I was referring to, it only offers exclusions with time periods.

I believe self-exclusion is applicable to the gambling platform where the self-exclusion is initiated.  I have not heard of anything about global self-exclusion.  The global self-exclusion is probably not possible because each casino has a different license and jurisdiction.  And I think there is no centralized office that has been made that centralizes all gambling platform activities.

So if a gambler has been playing on 20 platforms and needs to self-exclude entirely, he has to make a self-exclusion request on all 20 platforms, that is if these 20 platforms have a self-exclusion feature on their platform.  In my experience, not all platforms have this feature, and it happens that I am playing on one (local gambling apps) that does not have it.

[Agbe]

I have not seen such in the casinos I have to played with. Protection or pointless is technical answer. Some will agree and others will disagree. As someone said, you can blocked yourself from one casino and register another one to continue which means the mind is not yet made up to stop gambling in the giving period. If the gambler's mind is made up to exclude himself from gambling, he might not need the self exclusion feature but just logout and that is all.

[X-ray]

Doing self exclusion = find a new place to gamble with. I know the main purpose was to create a barrier, but it's often didn't work. It can work only if you're not only doing self exclusion, but you also cleaning yourself from being addicted to gamble.

[xenomorfo]

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

I agree with you, for me too this is a useless feature, also because it shouldn't be a program that you set yourself to exclude yourself, which you can then bypass and include again, but it must be our strong character that avoids us spending excessively. It's one thing to set alerts and bells, but self-exclusion, in my opinion, is absolutely useless.

[TopTort777]

Self-exclusion feature would work if there would unite network between all casino, one big user data base. But, casino is a business first of all. When one casino closes access for one user, other casino open their hand wide and welcome that self-excluded guy Since casinos fight for customers, if user loses access in one casino, if other casino would find it out, they would start luring that user with bonuses

[348Judah]

Self exclusion could be the best strategy to help out with those battling addiction, if we can go into the whole process and also abide with the directives that may come as guidelines towards the effective use of this strategy, though am not seeing it as being common for use like that, maybe a am not prone to having those addicted into gambling around me that they want a way out of it, because a responsible bambing does not warrant for all these to be done.

[|MINER|]

Self exclusion could be the best strategy to help out with those battling addiction, if we can go into the whole process and also abide with the directives that may come as guidelines towards the effective use of this strategy, though am not seeing it as being common for use like that, maybe a am not prone to having those addicted into gambling around me that they want a way out of it, because a responsible bambing does not warrant for all these to be done.

While some of these features may actually be useful, for many it may not be useful.
However, if I give my personal opinion on this matter, I think it can actually be useful if we see that currently, in most reputable online casinos, gambling is not possible without KYC verification, and therefore, if a user uses the self-exclusion feature in multiple reputable casinos, then the pressure to gamble will be reduced to some extent in the future.

[Lida93]

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.

That's possible to happen with am addicted gambler that is struggling with chronic gambling problem. They actually abuse the use of the self exclusion system on their self and since the casino can't notice it's still same person when they have to use different account it tends to make the idea of self exclusion worthless and not fulfilling it's purpose. Whether in physical or online humans can find a way to outsmart the exclusion restrictions, so it's actually as you pointed it out that it's base on the individual determination to change for better that gives a meaningful to self exclusion system.

[alani123]

Self exclusion would be meaningful if there was a way to enforce it globally. But actually casinos can just opt in to enforcing it and many don't even bother. For most crypto casinos, self exclusion is only for their platform. Whereas with nationally licensed casinos you can more easily be excluded from all of them at once.

The issue here is that there has even grown a market for taking in players who have been excluded from other places. This is also part of KYC free casinos.

So in that regard I can say it is still useful but the player has to self regulate too.

[PrivacyG]

Most gambling addicts prefer to die in silence rather than to seek help.  Maybe they are scared of social stigma.

A LOT of people need help emotionally, mentally and they will never look for the help they need.  Even if people admit the problems consciously, it is difficult to actually go and find a solution because these people want to be 'strong'.  Until they are not.  And Gambling addicts are not an exception at all.  In fact, addictions are probably the worst to treat and admit because they are hard to push away from you and you always have the excuses ready for continuing your vices.  You are used to using the excuses.  If it does not become a habit to excuse your self, it is not too hard to apply self exclusion with actual success.

[romero121]

Personally I excluded myself from gambling for some time period. During those days I never received the bonus what I've wagered earlier and lost. Looking at this once again started to gamble. So, this doesn't work perfect. The right way to make it more effective is through a process. Maybe, an user self excluded should prove that he isn't addicted only then he'll be allowed to gamble. However in reality to make such technical measures is really impossible as people will find alternate ways to gamble.

[livingfree]

Doing self exclusion = find a new place to gamble with. I know the main purpose was to create a barrier, but it's often didn't work. It can work only if you're not only doing self exclusion, but you also cleaning yourself from being addicted to gamble.

I think that everyone is asking for more about it when we can even not use it.

So, it's either pointless and helpful whichever we look at it. Since I haven't used that, I don't need to use it and so it's pointless and useless for me.

But if there will be some gamblers who have hoped in it and that made them grateful for having that, that's helpful on their end.

It's like a two-edged sword for the users of it and even to the speculators like us when we care for the others but, we think that it's not helpful for them because they can do other things aside from that just to keep gambling.

[Orpichukwu]

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.

Self exclusion is a feature that assists players who are willing to avoid gambling stay out of the habit for a while. When a gambler is not yet willing or didn't conclude within their mind that they're done with gaming or wants to take a break, it'll be hard for such features to be useful even when applied. Casinos do have a way to tackle compulsive gaming, which may be the reason why the gamer is blaming the house for not coming to his aid. However, what the house does, which is, terminating the player from using any online casino, do fail at the availability of high level internet proxies, that helps people bypass bans and restrictions.

In the same way that some can apply for self-exclusion and still break it themselves, that's the same way that even if the casino has a way to prevent them from gambling, they will still somehow bypass it because they need to feed their gambling addiction. The fight against addiction usually starts from the gambler itself before it can extend to whatever help is provided by other bodies.