Does anyone here actually use self-exclusion in casinos?

[Questat]

I believe that both statements are possible simultaneously. As a very addicted gambler, self-exclusion is not likely to be pro-actively taken since as you said the addiction to carry on playing normally dictates over everything. To that extent, it is like a box-ticking exercise to regulators and casinos. Nevertheless, it is not entirely useless, in my opinion. There are players who do strike a chord following a dismal defeat and self-exclusion turns out to be the final fortification. It is not a cure, but some sort of speed bump. The fact is that the problem is that casinos are overrelying on it rather than supporting more responsible-gaming initiatives that are non-problematic.

Addicted gamblers usually just keep going until they lose everything. Clicking self-exclusion feels like admitting defeat, and most of us aren’t wired that way. We’re gamblers, we always believe we can still win even when we’re already losing, and that’s exactly why we don’t stop and just keep pushing.

For many people, self-exclusion only becomes “serious” when there’s no money left to gamble anymore, and by that time, the damage is already done.

[summonerrk]

Most casinos now have a self-exclusion feature. On paper it sounds good, but I’m honestly curious who actually uses it.

I find it a bit useless. If someone is already addicted, do you really expect them to stop and apply for self-exclusion?
At that point the priority is to play and try to win back losses, not to fill out a restriction form.

So does this feature really help, or is it just there so casinos can say they’re being “responsible”? Curious to hear real experiences, if any.

In the country where I live, there are now many services that help gamblers declare bankruptcy, allowing them to write off debts even of over $3,000. They can no longer visit casinos and register there. Such gamblers will also automatically be recognized as those who can no longer take out loans, which will save them from insanely accumulating debt.
Unfortunately, they won't be able to start their own business. But I think there are some legal procedures that will allow them to stop declaring bankruptcy and start a new life once they realize that their addiction no longer has power over them and never will again.

[bubilas]

In the country where I live, there are now many services that help gamblers declare bankruptcy, allowing them to write off debts even of over $3,000. They can no longer visit casinos and register there. Such gamblers will also automatically be recognized as those who can no longer take out loans, which will save them from insanely accumulating debt.
Unfortunately, they won't be able to start their own business. But I think there are some legal procedures that will allow them to stop declaring bankruptcy and start a new life once they realize that their addiction no longer has power over them and never will again.

$3,000 is quite a significant sum, and it's great that the government cares about its citizens. So they can write off this debt at the state's expense. After all, many people don't earn much money, and unfortunately, if they also have a gambling addiction, it will be very difficult for them to find this money. This puts pressure on them, and such a program allows them to start life with a clean slate. And it's great that the government cares about its citizens. After all, the population is the most important resource for absolutely any state. After all, the population is the workforce, and it must be healthy and free of any kind of addiction.

[imthegreat]

After all, the population is the workforce, and it must be healthy and free of any kind of addiction.

It's great that in our modern age of digitalization, online casinos (not just brick-and-mortar casinos) can easily and automatically block people at their own request, allowing them to voluntarily no longer visit that online casino. After all, back when there were only brick-and-mortar casinos, this was very difficult. A gambler would have to personally show their passport at the casino and explain why they shouldn't be allowed in. They would also have to visit every casino in the city and neighboring towns. And when addiction takes hold, they would be forced to carry a passport to prove their identity. Without online casinos, this would have been a real hassle.

[Awaklara]

I find it a bit useless. If someone is already addicted, do you really expect them to stop and apply for self-exclusion?

For gamblers who are already addicted, of course, this feature will not be useful, because addicts will certainly continue to choose to play. The self-exclusion feature might be more useful for those who are already setting limits on their gambling from the start. So, in reality, there is already a plan where gamblers will stop and return.
Perhaps this feature could be useful for addicts, but only for those who have received treatment from professionals who help addicts to stop gambling, while under supervision.

[maydna]

Self-exclusion is worth if they really wants to limits from gambling. They worry if gambling makes them addicted and difficult to leaves it so they activate self-exclusion. But this will not works if they still wants to playing gambling someday.

It needs discipline to leaves gambling from their lives temporary or forever. The problem is many people lack of discipline and bring them back to casino and continue gambling.

I am not activating self-exclusion yet. I can leaves gambling temporary and will not tempting to return playing gambling. I know the risks so I wants to avoid that and fortunately, I have other things to do to distract my minds.

This feature now is available in many casinos so casinos wants to show that they supports those who want to use self-exclusion to avoids gambling for a while. They offer gambling responsible to gamblers so that will depends on gamblers.

[acroman08]

So does this feature really help, or is it just there so casinos can say they’re being “responsible”? Curious to hear real experiences, if any.

I haven't personally used it, but I think it does help the gambler in some ways, but of course, only if the gambler actually respects the self-exclusion they requested. Also, casinos usually self-exclusion as a way to follow the gambling regulation in their region or their license provider. So they might not really want it, but they have to because of the regulation.

[viljy]

In my opinion, this is a fiction that will not bring real restrictions to the addicted player, because there are many different casinos, in other words, the addicted player will find alternatives. After all, you need to fight your addiction from within your personality, and not pass it on to the casino. On the other hand, such a function removes the moral responsibility for the fate of the player from the casino.

By the way, Russia seems to have passed a law on self-restriction among bookmakers. I haven't read in detail how exactly this works, but in theory, if a client is registered with an official bookmaker with personal data, then with self-restriction they should be restricted at any bookmaker in the country. If this is indeed the case, then this format makes sense, since it leaves no legal workarounds.

[Die_empty]

In my opinion, this is a fiction that will not bring real restrictions to the addicted player, because there are many different casinos, in other words, the addicted player will find alternatives. After all, you need to fight your addiction from within your personality, and not pass it on to the casino. On the other hand, such a function removes the moral responsibility for the fate of the player from the casino.

By the way, Russia seems to have passed a law on self-restriction among bookmakers. I haven't read in detail how exactly this works, but in theory, if a client is registered with an official bookmaker with personal data, then with self-restriction they should be restricted at any bookmaker in the country. If this is indeed the case, then this format makes sense, since it leaves no legal workarounds.

The proposed law will be a welcome development.  Barring a gambling addict from others casinos after he had self excluded in a casino would be good. But self control is the best option this is because there are still other casinos that can be accessed through diverse means. Using a VPN can give a gambler unlimited access to unregistered casinos. Gamblers would also bypass these restrictions by using a fake identity to register in casinos.

No government law or casino rules can lead to freedom from addiction, there should first be a willingness to quit or be a responsible gambler.

[Yaunfitda]

Most casinos now have a self-exclusion feature. On paper it sounds good, but I’m honestly curious who actually uses it.

I find it a bit useless. If someone is already addicted, do you really expect them to stop and apply for self-exclusion?
At that point the priority is to play and try to win back losses, not to fill out a restriction form.

So does this feature really help, or is it just there so casinos can say they’re being “responsible”? Curious to hear real experiences, if any.

I guess it's just another work around for casinos to say to gamblers that they have a part of stopping someone from losing more money, or being addicted by having this self-exclusion. But in the end, still depends on the gamblers themselves and take advantage of this program. However, there are still gamblers who will go to the extreme and try to go and login or create a new account even after going to this program. As if they are testing if the program do works or not. But to answer the question, No, I haven't used self exclusion, I'm mature enough to know when to stop myself as I could be falling into the borderline of gambling addiction if I continue and worst, lose more money. So it depends on how someone will use this self-exclusion from casinos and what will they do after that.

[Orpichukwu]

I haven't personally used it, but I think it does help the gambler in some ways, but of course, only if the gambler actually respects the self-exclusion they requested. Also, casinos usually self-exclusion as a way to follow the gambling regulation in their region or their license provider. So they might not really want it, but they have to because of the regulation.

isn't it just same thing as deciding not to gamble t all? i mean why the formality. it;s not as if you've entered in a contract or something with the casino that you must gamble as long as you have an account registered with them, and so you need to inform them first before you can exclude yourself from gambling there. any gambler who can be willing and able to respect the self exclusion rule doesnt really need it in my opinion.

[Oluwa-btc]

Normally,self exclusion is for gamblers who value self control,accountability and self awareness.There're many gamblers who have unconsciously or carelessly lost themselves to gambling but silently sign up for self exclusion for repositioning and guidance.While more people think it's irrelevant,It becomes relevant to people who are struggling addiction,wants to stop and regain control again.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Normally,self exclusion is for gamblers who value self control,accountability and self awareness.There're many gamblers who have unconsciously or carelessly lost themselves to gambling but silently sign up for self exclusion for repositioning and guidance.While more people think it's irrelevant,It becomes relevant to people who are struggling addiction,wants to stop and regain control again.

You are right, the self exclusion is for people that want to quit or recover from addiction if they have tried to help themselves but it is not working, best is to apply to the casino so that it will shut them out from gambling until they reapply for the exclusion to be removed. Self discipline would also help the gambler to just abide to the rules limiting their from gambling activities.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Most casinos now have a self-exclusion feature. On paper it sounds good, but I’m honestly curious who actually uses it.

I find it a bit useless. If someone is already addicted, do you really expect them to stop and apply for self-exclusion?
At that point the priority is to play and try to win back losses, not to fill out a restriction form.

So does this feature really help, or is it just there so casinos can say they’re being “responsible”? Curious to hear real experiences, if any.

Self exclusion actually helps a specific group of people who know they’re spiraling and want a hard external stop when willpower isn’t enough. You’re right that it won’t magically fix deep addiction in the heat of chasing losses, but for some it’s the pause that prevents things from getting much worse. That said, casinos definitely also use it as a responsibility checkbox, especially when it’s easy to opt out or poorly enforced.

[Fortify]

Most casinos now have a self-exclusion feature. On paper it sounds good, but I’m honestly curious who actually uses it.

I find it a bit useless. If someone is already addicted, do you really expect them to stop and apply for self-exclusion?
At that point the priority is to play and try to win back losses, not to fill out a restriction form.

So does this feature really help, or is it just there so casinos can say they’re being “responsible”? Curious to hear real experiences, if any.

I've used it a few times over the years and it has actually helped a bunch. Most commonly when going through a bit of an online poker playing binge, I might go hard at it for a couple weekends - usually successfully at the start but then starting to trail off as a bit of impatience starts to set in. By the last day I've usually given up any gains and realize that I don't have the skills or commitment to grind it out in the long term. At that point I bail out an self exclude for a year or two. If you consider there are only a 2-3 really big poker sites that will have enough players on, that has been effective to keep me from returning until I get the next urge to flex on a little bit of poker. I like the functionality and saw one site which had a 5 year exclusion period which was really responsible, but they usually try to keep them as short as possible.

[acroman08]

isn't it just same thing as deciding not to gamble t all? i mean why the formality. it;s not as if you've entered in a contract or something with the casino that you must gamble as long as you have an account registered with them, and so you need to inform them first before you can exclude yourself from gambling there. any gambler who can be willing and able to respect the self exclusion rule doesnt really need it in my opinion.

True, but there are people who need a bit of a push or a reason to do something or follow it. Basically, what I am saying is, there are people who would have trouble stopping or postponing their gambling unless they have a reason or are pushed to do it. That's where self exclusion comes in, it basically gives them a reason to stop or postpone their gambling activities.

[Mandoy]

isn't it just same thing as deciding not to gamble t all? i mean why the formality. it;s not as if you've entered in a contract or something with the casino that you must gamble as long as you have an account registered with them, and so you need to inform them first before you can exclude yourself from gambling there. any gambler who can be willing and able to respect the self exclusion rule doesnt really need it in my opinion.

True, but there are people who need a bit of a push or a reason to do something or follow it. Basically, what I am saying is, there are people who would have trouble stopping or postponing their gambling unless they have a reason or are pushed to do it. That's where self exclusion comes in, it basically gives them a reason to stop or postpone their gambling activities.

I understand, but this is not self-exclusion, but merely a choice to quit gambling. The will power will not work in most cases in case of emotions and losses. Self-exclusion creates an official divide between easy access and introduces responsibility. Relapse or control may be the difference between those weak moments. There are indeed players who require a policy imposed on them to justify their choice. It is like putting a padlock on what one is not supposed to touch. To serious gamblers it might not be needed, but to some, it is an effective and defensive measure in general nowadays.

[acroman08]

I understand, but this is not self-exclusion, but merely a choice to quit gambling. The will power will not work in most cases in case of emotions and losses. Self-exclusion creates an official divide between easy access and introduces responsibility. Relapse or control may be the difference between those weak moments. There are indeed players who require a policy imposed on them to justify their choice. It is like putting a padlock on what one is not supposed to touch. To serious gamblers it might not be needed, but to some, it is an effective and defensive measure in general nowadays.

Not sure what is the highlighted part is about, but you basically understood what I said. I am basically saying that some gamblers that might need the self exclusion feature as a reason to finally either stop or postpone their gambling. which they would might not have done if the feature doesn't exist.

[imthegreat]

Most casinos now have a self-exclusion feature. On paper it sounds good, but I’m honestly curious who actually uses it.

I find it a bit useless. If someone is already addicted, do you really expect them to stop and apply for self-exclusion?
At that point the priority is to play and try to win back losses, not to fill out a restriction form.

So does this feature really help, or is it just there so casinos can say they’re being “responsible”? Curious to hear real experiences, if any.

Self-exclusion from casinos really works for gamblers. I recently read a story about a guy who was tired of his addiction: he had a falling out with his wife and was in huge debt. He decided to take a comprehensive approach: he filed a petition to block his online gambling and instructed his wife to keep a close eye on him. He sold his smartphone and bought an ancient Siemens phone with no internet connection. There were no physical casinos in his country, so this wasn't a problem. Ultimately, he overcame his addiction and hasn't gambled for three years. I'm glad there are examples of such strong-willed people.

[Findingnemo]

Most casinos now have a self-exclusion feature. On paper it sounds good, but I’m honestly curious who actually uses it.

I find it a bit useless. If someone is already addicted, do you really expect them to stop and apply for self-exclusion?
At that point the priority is to play and try to win back losses, not to fill out a restriction form.

So does this feature really help, or is it just there so casinos can say they’re being “responsible”? Curious to hear real experiences, if any.

Self-exclusion from casinos really works for gamblers. I recently read a story about a guy who was tired of his addiction: he had a falling out with his wife and was in huge debt. He decided to take a comprehensive approach: he filed a petition to block his online gambling and instructed his wife to keep a close eye on him. He sold his smartphone and bought an ancient Siemens phone with no internet connection. There were no physical casinos in his country, so this wasn't a problem. Ultimately, he overcame his addiction and hasn't gambled for three years. I'm glad there are examples of such strong-willed people.

But self exclusion isn't the one that made him quit, it's his strong willingness to stay away from gambling but someone who isn't that strong can use self exclusion and just the next day they can use a different casino to gamble there.

Self exclusion can bring lot of issues, but on some events it can help with these kind of cases so it's how people use not the feature alone is helpful.