“Anonymous casino” is a funny label, shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead

[Gozie51]

Hi  

I trust well-known and reputable casino websites much more. An anonymous casino sounds a bit scary to me. I mean, if I honestly win a large amount of money in an anonymous casino and they refuse to pay out my winnings, who am I supposed to complain to if the casino has an anonymous legal address? That’s why I believe a casino cannot be anonymous by definition. Only the player can be anonymous.

I think the buttom line is whether the anonymous casino is registered with a licencing body where they can be traced to, but I don't know how possible that is, for a casino to be anonymous and also be under umbrella of licencing body.

However, some gamblers will see them as decentralised casinos and want to remain anonymous themselves. It is just a choice where we want to play and how we want to protect our identity. As for anonymous casino, I see them as decentralised casino, they are encrypted in techniques and data processing. One way you can know if anonymous casino is reputable is the community feedback and so what is important is to check for their rating either from their community chat or other means possible.

[maydna]

I am afraid privacy slowly will be gone especially in the future. As government strict their regulations to any business, not just gambling, that can makes customers must follow their rules. We can't say anonymous gamblers to ourselves because KYC will behind us and it's ready to impose to us.

I see that as pure marketing but we have our option to choose the casino even if that casino require us to do KYC. If you just gamble for fun, I think casino will not impose KYC too completely because you only use small amount, you play occasionally, you don't spend too large money. Casino will thinks that you are seasonal gamblers and not heavy gamblers.

[fullfitlarry]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

I haven't heard some casinos as promoting themselves as 'anonymous casino' as claim by the OP. But if there is one, then by all semantics, it's wrong as anonymous means that the people behind is unknown. So it's very wrong to have this kind of advertisement for a online gambling casinos.

For some of us who have been in the gambling industry for years, I don't think that anonymous matter anymore.

We all know that KYC is mandatory for casino and it's front to say that they are non-KYC because maybe hidden in their ToS is that they have the rights to ask for KYC is then deemed so.

[Antotena]

I am afraid privacy slowly will be gone especially in the future. As government strict their regulations to any business, not just gambling, that can makes customers must follow their rules. We can't say anonymous gamblers to ourselves because KYC will behind us and it's ready to impose to us.

I see that as pure marketing but we have our option to choose the casino even if that casino require us to do KYC. If you just gamble for fun, I think casino will not impose KYC too completely because you only use small amount, you play occasionally, you don't spend too large money. Casino will thinks that you are seasonal gamblers and not heavy gamblers.

I also think that gradually, we are adapting to the shape the government brings to the us the people. People always says that privacy is important but the government want us to give them and the access and if you look the plenty of casino we used to stay, it's casino that has Kyc that we used the most, many people don't use the casino that offer kyc less because people even fear casino of such, they think since people don't know the team and the owners.

Check the numbers, if you see a casino in numbers hardly are you going to see 1 that is not doing Kyc and out of this numbers, they may not have half the customers the casino with Kyc have. So you can see that it's not the problem of the government, it's the people that want it because they don't care about there privacy, they just want to play their games and go home, even in this forum the number of casino that offers no Kyc are less in numbers.

[AVE5]

I think the anonymity gambling we keep talking about is prioritize on players privacy where no Kyc's are required to hide users identity.
Perhaps we can still call those terms anonymous casino because the sites are what provides the perspective that doesn't expose users privacies and not the users on their own formations that makes up the anonymity.
Hence players are abide with the terms of the casino's, then the casino should be acknowledged and not players. Therefore I'll find necessary reasons why the label is given to the platforms and not the players.

[o48o]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

Isn't the title implicating that you are going to be anonymous already? I mean technically you could name it like that, but why?. I don't see it as

I give you some reasons why i wouldn't name it like that:

1: "Gambler" has even more negative connotation tied to it, then a gambling in general.

2: When people would search "anonymous gambler", they probably just find gamblers anonymous support group, and it's in bad taste to tempt people who are looking for it, to find your casino.

3 When i am thinking about branding, i am looking to identity to the Casino, i wouldn't identify Casino as a gambler.

[dimonstration]

I think the anonymity gambling we keep talking about is prioritize on players privacy where no Kyc's are required to hide users identity.
Perhaps we can still call those terms anonymous casino because the sites are what provides the perspective that doesn't expose users privacies and not the users on their own formations that makes up the anonymity.
Hence players are abide with the terms of the casino's, then the casino should be acknowledged and not players. Therefore I'll find necessary reasons why the label is given to the platforms and not the players.

You’re also correct. It depends on how people interpret the word but the OP have a point too on his own perspective when describing the word Anonymous casino because that it was meant without any context.

But gamblers that already familiarize on this kind of tagline knew that it was meant for user privacy not the other way around since casino have license which means they done KYC verification with their license provider.

[retreat]

I don't think that is an important thing to discuss. I mean we understand that most casinos have their own marketing tricks to attract gamblers to play on their platform, and usually casinos that don't require KYC will call themselves anonymous casinos, even though in reality they are not, but that is an advantage they want to highlight, which is fine, as long as they don't trick gamblers through terms and conditions that are deliberately hidden.

[Finestream]

I don't think that is an important thing to discuss. I mean we understand that most casinos have their own marketing tricks to attract gamblers to play on their platform, and usually casinos that don't require KYC will call themselves anonymous casinos, even though in reality they are not, but that is an advantage they want to highlight, which is fine, as long as they don't trick gamblers through terms and conditions that are deliberately hidden.

Well, if everyone really understood that this is normal, then there wouldn’t even be a discussion. The problem is, we still see complaints from gamblers who thought a casino was fully KYC-free or anonymous, then suddenly they get hit with KYC once they win big.

That small misunderstanding can cost them a lot. Imagine hitting a huge win, then finding out you can’t withdraw because you can’t or won’t complete KYC.
From their point of view, they joined thinking it would never be required, so that’s where the frustration comes from.

[Marvelockg]

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

If a casino tries to hide it identity by reason of being anonymous, with it is going to successfully do is to reduce the extent of trust people have on that casino because trying to look anonymous only shows that there is something that is fishy about the casino. you can not even call it a marketing strategy because the singular association of anonymous with a casino will trigger a believe of distrust. it is similar thing with gamblers that are not open about revealing their identity, it always gives an impression that the said gambler is someone that is not even straight forward to even start with.

[Slow death]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

It's all marketing because for casinos to operate they need licenses, and licensing providers require casinos to submit a KYC (Know Your Customer) declaration to be granted licenses. If governments catch a casino operating without a license, the casino owner can face criminal charges, resulting in years in prison and very high fines. Therefore, it's unrealistic to talk about anonymity in casinos today. Even when a casino intends to sponsor a league, the owners need to come out of anonymity to sign the contract with the team they want to sponsor.

[Pandu Geddon]

I don't think that is an important thing to discuss. I mean we understand that most casinos have their own marketing tricks to attract gamblers to play on their platform, and usually casinos that don't require KYC will call themselves anonymous casinos, even though in reality they are not, but that is an advantage they want to highlight, which is fine, as long as they don't trick gamblers through terms and conditions that are deliberately hidden.

If a casino still asks for KYC, they shouldn’t be able to claim themselves as an anonymous casino. Even in any situation that raises suspicion, they shouldn’t request data from gamblers to perform verification. But as we can see, many gamblers don’t mind completing KYC at a casino that has a good reputation. And gamblers can play regularly at that casino.

[Sammye3]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

Well, to some extent anonymous casinos protects the privacy of gamblers with the "no KYC" policy which could be a bit preferable to some people because of the ease of withdrawal and deposits without need for verification.

But on the other hand, it is not entirely safe because you do not have any legal protection in cases of complications or issues. As much as there is no restrictions to what age can gamble, it is possible that it could be a marketing strategy to attract people, and T&C could be a bit deceiving.

I really don't buy the idea of an anonymous casinos, though I do more of sports betting. In sports betting, KYC verification is required to enable withdrawals and I have not really had any issue of privacy breach as regards to this so I don't specifically see any issues yet in providing KYC verification.

[passwordnow]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

Pure hype and marketing, that's what I can see from it. Those who are claiming that they're anonymous, I think that you are right and must have been changed into anonymous gambler. Because eventually, with all of these claims, they'll start asking kyc to their players when the are gaining traction. That's the idea that attracted them a lot of players for telling they are anonymous and unlikely to ask kyc. But even so, that's giving them the false identity that they're real anonymous casino.

[danadc]

Seeing a casino like that would make me want to play there, but I'd wait to get several opinions about it. It might be a scam, but I would like casinos to take the initiative to be anonymous again, like they were before, without requiring so much KYC But it is something very interesting.

[uchegod-21]

I don't think that is an important thing to discuss. I mean we understand that most casinos have their own marketing tricks to attract gamblers to play on their platform, and usually casinos that don't require KYC will call themselves anonymous casinos, even though in reality they are not, but that is an advantage they want to highlight, which is fine, as long as they don't trick gamblers through terms and conditions that are deliberately hidden.

If a casino still asks for KYC, they shouldn’t be able to claim themselves as an anonymous casino. Even in any situation that raises suspicion, they shouldn’t request data from gamblers to perform verification. But as we can see, many gamblers don’t mind completing KYC at a casino that has a good reputation. And gamblers can play regularly at that casino.

The problem with casinos who claim to offer gamblers no KYC verifications is not the KYC itself, but their lack of honesty.  Casinos claim they are No-KYC casinos but will put in emergency KYC restrictions once large wins or withdrawals are involved. Most of these procedures keeps some gamblers stranded. Some will out of frustration forfeit their wins if they can't fight for their right.

I will prefer an honest KYC casino to a misleading no-KYC casino. Out of curiosity, are there really no KYC casinos? They are all liars tricking gamblers to gamble with them.

[Doan9269]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

There are anonymous gambling platforms, because they don't have a physical representation and you don't know about how you can get them track down completely, some of them also respect our privacy and don't bother asking for our private information, that is why you will see them that they don't support for KYC, but when a casino demands for this, they are probably indicating that they are not being anonymous any longer, we should know all these before using any gambling platform and go for the option we best fit in for.

[taufik123]

Pure hype and marketing, that's what I can see from it. Those who are claiming that they're anonymous, I think that you are right and must have been changed into anonymous gambler. Because eventually, with all of these claims, they'll start asking kyc to their players when the are gaining traction. That's the idea that attracted them a lot of players for telling they are anonymous and unlikely to ask kyc. But even so, that's giving them the false identity that they're real anonymous casino.

Indeed, many do this, such as completely anonymous but if you read the ToS carefully then you will see how many restrictions will make you have to do KYC,
because casinos that are legal will do KYC because it is based on regulations that are set with the withdrawal limits that have been agreed.

No one is completely anonymous, everyone will definitely ask for complete personal data,
but the casino itself does become anonymous because the developers and owners of the casino also don't want to be known by anyone, maybe because it would be dangerous if anyone knew.

[Odusko]

Seeing a casino like that would make me want to play there, but I'd wait to get several opinions about it. It might be a scam, but I would like casinos to take the initiative to be anonymous again, like they were before, without requiring so much KYC But it is something very interesting.

My turn off from such a casino will be if their ask me for KYC, I think that will be the biggest set back if their actually parade themselves as anonymous cryptocurrency casinos, what the hell will their be doing with KYC verification, who are they taking it to, this won't work at least their should stand by their world and not be one-sided.

[SquallLeonhart]

I think an anonymous casino doesn't really or only mean that the people behind it are anonymous but it also or mainly refers to the gamblers. What is weird is if the anonymous casino suddenly became onymous or that they will now require a KYC. Having the label is surely part of their marketing to attract gamblers that values their privacy the most.

For me, it doesn't really matter if what type of casino I'm playing with, whether it is anonymous or onymous but I admit that KYC-based casinos are a hassle at first, if they are mandatory. There were still a couple of KYC-enabled casinos I signed up with before, only because they promised a decent bonus, lol.