Feature enable to avoid self ban completely

[Patikno]

As always I thought maybe somethings have changed now that I passed a lot of time without gambling and played Pragmatic Gates of Olympus Super Scatter, which of course got to near 3000 spins without giving the bonus through normal game play, now if this is not something to be sued this f*cking provider then I don't know what it is.

I was wondering because of this maybe casinos could add a feature where you expel and ban only a provider or some providers instead of completely self ban option. For example an option to never show again Pragmatic ever again to me and this be non changeable after the user accepts it.

I initially thought, that I was the only one experiencing bad luck with the slot game the OP mentioned, but it turns out others have experienced the same thing. Oddly enough, I haven't had such bad luck with other games, such as; Gates of Olympus 1000, or the usual ones. Well, I think casinos could add a feature for users to hide certain games "which they don't like". So, it would help users play more comfortably at a casino. I have never considered hiding a specific game provider, but I just dislike some games, that aren't particularly appealing based on my experience.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

The moment the casino allows gamblers to have priority or power to vet and cast vote on which they want and the one they don't want from the game providers, it is not going to be easy for the casino to achieve their goal for operating their business, has gamblers we always have reasons enough to counter a provider as long as they don't go in line with what they stand to offer, I will prefer things to go on the way they are always been.

[lovesmayfamilis]

The thing prevents you playing one provider is when the provider don't allow your country to play their games. Casino don't have that feature but the providers can prohibit you from playing the games.

If you don't want to play the slot from one provider, you should stay away and choose slot from other providers. No need any feature to do this but you should skip it by yourself.

Really. I'm reading the answers above, and I don't understand what the problem is. The player always has a choice, especially since in this topic a person perfectly understands where and what he is playing. The excuses that he cannot stop and needs to be blocked are the opinion of a child who cannot be torn away from sweets.  It's amazing to play in a casino, "raping" yourself and not getting any satisfaction.  All you need to do is grow up and not shift the blame onto the provider, and you should also understand that in business, all means are good, someone earns millions on such behavior.  The choice is always up to the one who pays and allows someone else's wallet to get fat.

[Agbe]

The moment the casino allows gamblers to have priority or power to vet and cast vote on which they want and the one they don't want from the game providers, it is not going to be easy for the casino to achieve their goal for operating their business, has gamblers we always have reasons enough to counter a provider as long as they don't go in line with what they stand to offer, I will prefer things to go on the way they are always been.

I think you are correct because when a gambler got angry on a game and after sometimes seeing the game on the casino can change his mind to try it again. And probably that is the game Providers that give them more profit in the casino so if they add such feature for gamblers to expel or self-excluded and the number is high, it will affect them.

[Davidvictorson]

As always I thought maybe somethings have changed now that I passed a lot of time without gambling and played Pragmatic Gates of Olympus Super Scatter, which of course got to near 3000 spins without giving the bonus through normal game play, now if this is not something to be sued this f*cking provider then I don't know what it is.

I was wondering because of this maybe casinos could add a feature where you expel and ban only a provider or some providers instead of completely self ban option. For example an option to never show again Pragmatic ever again to me and this be non changeable after the user accepts it.

I like the idea. It is likely that we would see this happen soon if enough people talk about it and it generates some attention. However, this will not be a typically self-exclusion because to the best of my knowledge, self-exclusion means that the person want to take a break from gambling completely for a period of time and not from being restricted from seeing games offerings by a provider. This would be something else.

[ralle14]

That's doable for casinos, but it'll require a lot of requests because it's not something they'll add on a whim. I recall seeing a feature similar to that, but with sportsbooks and they'd let you filter out certain sports from your list.

Then again, it wouldn't hurt to create a blacklist, as that's what I do with my sports bets, in case I forget the mistake they've made in the past.

[Achalugo BTC]

I like the idea. It is likely that we would see this happen soon if enough people talk about it and it generates some attention. However, this will not be a typically self-exclusion because to the best of my knowledge, self-exclusion means that the person want to take a break from gambling completely for a period of time and not from being restricted from seeing games offerings by a provider. This would be something else.

Don't you think its a best idea for one to take a break from gambling? And beside, what good thing is gambling impacting in the lives of the gamblers other than to take more from them and putting them in a state that is good. If any casino is being designed with the option of self - exclusion, I think its best to be used by people who finds it hard to control their emotional, so that they won't have to make mistakes that will ruined their lives.

[WhoYouCantKill]

The moment the casino allows gamblers to have priority or power to vet and cast vote on which they want and the one they don't want from the game providers, it is not going to be easy for the casino to achieve their goal for operating their business, has gamblers we always have reasons enough to counter a provider as long as they don't go in line with what they stand to offer, I will prefer things to go on the way they are always been.

As far as their decision will be for the best, there is no reason for the casino's to be at the losing side, instead they will make more profit even more than before because players like it when their voice is being heard, they will make sure they gamble and this will also attract more customers to them, making them to gain more. However, as longer as it won't be detrimental to the both parties, then they should do it and be at peace with themselves.

[Bitcoin.com97]

The moment the casino allows gamblers to have priority or power to vet and cast vote on which they want and the one they don't want from the game providers, it is not going to be easy for the casino to achieve their goal for operating their business, has gamblers we always have reasons enough to counter a provider as long as they don't go in line with what they stand to offer, I will prefer things to go on the way they are always been.

You are correct , once they gave gamblers such powers , trust me casino will not be able to achieve their desire goals , people usually go for what benefits them and if it doesn’t go as per the plans they can go hard to stop it , his ideology is also good but if implemented casino will be at lost , so if anyone don’t like their activities it’s best they stop playing , gambling is also a business.

[dimonstration]

The moment the casino allows gamblers to have priority or power to vet and cast vote on which they want and the one they don't want from the game providers, it is not going to be easy for the casino to achieve their goal for operating their business, has gamblers we always have reasons enough to counter a provider as long as they don't go in line with what they stand to offer, I will prefer things to go on the way they are always been.

You are correct , once they gave gamblers such powers , trust me casino will not be able to achieve their desire goals , people usually go for what benefits them and if it doesn’t go as per the plans they can go hard to stop it , his ideology is also good but if implemented casino will be at lost , so if anyone don’t like their activities it’s best they stop playing , gambling is also a business.

That’s right since the current system is working which all casino games still receiving wager despite how high the house edge or volatility is. Some casino do occasionally remove or lower their house edge on some of their games to attract players but still many preferred the typical popular game provider no matter how bad it’s live RTP.

Casino can implement players preferences on the casino bonus system but definitely not on game specification that will benefit player in the long run.

[KiaKia]

When gamblers are losing money that they can't afford to lose is when they will start calling out the casinos for losing money to them and why they don't stop them, are you a kid or what?

If you win money then casino don't have the right to stop you because you are winning, but when it's loss all over you start blaming someone for not stopping you, it's annoying that a loose grown up man is thinking this way.

Stop gambling! You are not even fit to be a gambler, you have no control over yourself, you people should stop looking for another grown ups who is going to restrict your asses from losing your money.

[lombok]

When gamblers are losing money that they can't afford to lose is when they will start calling out the casinos for losing money to them and why they don't stop them, are you a kid or what?

If you win money then casino don't have the right to stop you because you are winning, but when it's loss all over you start blaming someone for not stopping you, it's annoying that a loose grown up man is thinking this way.

Stop gambling! You are not even fit to be a gambler, you have no control over yourself, you people should stop looking for another grown ups who is going to restrict your asses from losing your money.

It is a very childish and irrational thought process to hold casinos accountable of eyeing the adults as moral watchdogs. Each player comes to the table knowing about risk that they are taking. Where it is true that pointing fingers at others is a way out, it is much more crucial to face yourself and simply to realize that you have no control on anything.

[YOSHIE]

For example an option to never show again Pragmatic ever again to me and this be non changeable after the user accepts it.

Of course, such options have positive and negative impacts, especially for gamblers and casinos.
Negative, maybe they think that Pragmatic casinos should not be judged for reasons that do not benefit the users themselves.
Positively, if the feature you are referring to is implemented, at least the casino can assess which games users like and which they don't like, so they might be able to increase bets, bonuses and so on.

But every online casino has its own reasons for each type of game, because this is Pragmatic's gaming business, maybe it benefits them a lot but not for users, maybe for that reason they don't want to implement the feature you mean, they are more profitable using the self-blocking option that only applies to one person, in general many casinos target new users, Pragmatic may be one of the targets for newcomers.

[Slow death]

From what I've observed, I believe casinos would only implement this feature if many customers complained and requested it, or if a well-established and highly reputable casino implemented it, causing other casinos to copy it. If not many people requested the feature, then no casino would implement it. Since I don't play casino games and prefer to stick to sports betting

I don't understand the differences between these game providers; to me, all casino games are the same. I've never managed to make a profit on any casino game. In the few times I played, I initially had high profits, continued playing, and lost everything. I gave up and only do sports betting now.

[Oshosondy]

I don't know whether the casino will see this feature as something important to implement because in my opinion, it's just like a player complaining for being unlucky.

This is actually what is happening as some gambers will be thinking of making money, they will be losing, and be thinking that the game provider is doing something not good. I have played the games of many other providers, no differences at the end of the day.

Regarding slot games that have a super scatter type, I also had a bad experience, so I never thought of playing them again, and even Pragmaticplay became a bad provider in my opinion.

Are there other games providers that you prefer because you are making money when using their games to gamble on the gambling sites?

[yahoo62278]

As always I thought maybe somethings have changed now that I passed a lot of time without gambling and played Pragmatic Gates of Olympus Super Scatter, which of course got to near 3000 spins without giving the bonus through normal game play, now if this is not something to be sued this f*cking provider then I don't know what it is.

I was wondering because of this maybe casinos could add a feature where you expel and ban only a provider or some providers instead of completely self ban option. For example an option to never show again Pragmatic ever again to me and this be non changeable after the user accepts it.

I see streamers playing shit games and they'll add bad games to their ban list. If they really wanted to play the game they could but they are pretty true to their list and avoid games on their lists. Sites don't offer to ban providers or slots to my knowledge, but a little self control fixes that for you. shouldn't be that difficult to not play a game you don't like.

[Cryptomultiplier]

​Its a genius idea I thought,  but the possibility is one that is contested on many grounds unless users come together under a single loud voice, then maybe casino platforms could include the feature.
The feature sounds extraordinary and distinct to the more disciplined players who understand what they want without losing access to the rest of the ecosystem experience.

[Mhizlove]

Casinos and providers rely on eachother, I hope you know that some casinos won't function without game providers because that's all they have to offer, but not all of them, I don't see how banning will help anyone, not even the gamblers, listen to yourself, you gambled severally and you expected to atleast get something back, you now think that banning provider should be a solution, I think you are angry for not getting anything back.

If bonus is what you are so concern about I think you should find casinos that gradually gives bonuses, online casinos will never add such filter to avoid some providers on their casinos, maybe they exist but not from those ones that I know, but assuming you have a particular game provider in mind that you trust more you can search for their games.

True casinos and providers do really depend on eachother, and banning one provider do not really solve the primary issue. The real problem here is when someone gamble's alot and at the end do not see any return, that's when frustration sets in and from there the thought of should I block the provider comes in. But the game does not owe any one bonus instead it's luck and the house advantage that still controls it. The better way to approach this kind of problem is for you to know that gambling isn't guaranteed for anybody, if you choose to play let it be for fun with limits and if you're being attracted by bonus just look for another platform that gives little and don't expect that the game must return or pay back

[DPHOR]

I was wondering because of this maybe casinos could add a feature where you expel and ban only a provider or some providers instead of completely self ban option. For example an option to never show again Pragmatic ever again to me and this be non changeable after the user accepts it.

This is completely impossible because the casino wouldn't place such restrictions to gambler instead they would say you should use the self exclusion section where your account would either be completely be blocked. If you notice that you are not that cool with the game you are playing there are chances for you to switch to other games that would make you have the fun you needed, but you should also know that games are for having fun and also for an entertainment purposes so whatever you are doing the casino may not be entirely banning games from site because you lose your game, of course this doesn't apply to other people profile since it's only your account to set such restrictions. I will advise you should put your interest into sports betting that deals with skills instead gambling blindly without knowing when you would be winning or not but with sports betting you could track their record and history to know which team and clubs is to win along the line while you are gambling.

[Fiatless]

Pragmatic Play is equally one of the most popular game provider, and I'm pretty sure they provide more than 50% of the games on each casino, and likewise generate casinos most of the profits. But it's just sad to hear that O.P gambled over 3000 spins but yet never got any bonus offer. So why it comes to O.Ps request that casinos should enable a feature to block certain game providers, I'm pretty much sure that casinos won't implement such feature, because they will be scared, many people might block the very game provider which is generating them the most revenue. So in a situation like this, I think to manually avoid all games provided by Pragmatic Play should be the best option for now.

It's not just bad, i think its fraudulant. In some providers, you can be lucky to get a bonus in less than 20 spins. I don't know if this has been happening consistently or just a single or a few times. Maybe a petition can be written to the license provider of the casino to complain about this occurrence. To safe onself from a complicated process, the best option would be to avoid Pragmatic games since most casinos don't have options to block these service providers.