Feature enable to avoid self ban completely

[Cointxz]

I say that I never experience this thing with any other provider except Pragmatic Play and that is why I think it is a good idea to have this feature enabled because I know I will keep trying their stupid games despite hating them, it is in a gambler nature to go and play where they are hit the hardest. So in my case and many others would be a good idea to have this feature as now I have started playing with ARS which let me play a lot of bonus buys but unfortunately the same end result in Pragmatic Play slot machines.

Each of us have different nemesis game provider and I agree to your suggestion on this thread for partial limit on game provider that we don’t like since casino can do this to game provider that is restricted to specific country like in my case, pragmatic is marked as unavailable to play on some casino meaning they can filter the provider out at their own will.

I have a provider that I don’t like too like thunderkick and habanero which are both sucks. I want to avoid them as much as possible whenever I gamble.

[Achalugo BTC]

It's easy to think about new features when you're not the dev but the exclusion button works to exclude you from the general betting experience from you, so nothing can trigger you back, it's like trying to stop drinking but then you want it so only 1 particular beer gets expelled but you still watch other alcohol around you. That won't solve your case,  the game isn't really the problem but you need to take a break from betting as a whole, that would be the better experience than to just exclude one game. Just the way this game got a hold on you, that's how the new game you enter will have the effect, so what better way than to exclude yourself entirely from the betting experience

That's right, it works better when one give themselves break, it helps to completely exclude themselves from betting, that way helps to fix the whole problems, so that even if you see your friends post bet slips, it won't trigger you again as you have shut out your emotions, which won't force one to gamble against your decision and also taking a break doesn't mean you still have the apps on your device or link to the sites but it involves one to delete any forms of it, so that one won't be tempted to go after it.

[Sanitough]

I thought of that as well, but I realized that if you only ban providers, then most likely you will still learn how to play other games and you can also get addicted there.

That is a lot of work for the casinos, so it is easier if it is just self-exclusion because when you reach that point, you already have a problem in gambling. That is likely addiction in progress and you do not want to make it worse.

[L E G E N D A R Y]

Gambling can make a gambler to lose fortunes without realizing until it's too late. There are gamblers that will be gambling like they don't have any other thing to use their time and money to do. Mistakes can happen in gambling and it's important we find quick solutions to it before it's may be too late. To make money from gambling, we need to make sure that we don't gamble for too long since that is how so many victims have became addicted to gambling without their full knowledge.

People don't realize they have problem until it starts destroy their lives, that is when they start looking for solutions, same goes with gambling, gamblers don't know they are getting addicted or some might even know but thinks they can handle it before it starts to affect them, when they could have start looking for solutions before it gets worse. Gambling can be very affect the lives of one badly if they let it in and that is by spending much time to it and taking it as a source of income as you said earlier.

[Oasisman]

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 don't think that option is available, or the casino would allow it. There could be some options in the future to exclude a provider on your lists for a certain period of time, but not totally ban it forever that are non-changeable. That would only serve as a cool-down period after being frustrated, which triggers your compulsive gambling behaviour.
The same thing could happen to you with the same gambling provider. Why don't you try the same slot game in a different online casino and see if the results are still the same?
I've also been playing that same game because of the high potential bonus win, but one thing I can remember about the game is that it's really hard to hit a good win, lol.

[Pandu Geddon]

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 don't think that option is available, or the casino would allow it. There could be some options in the future to exclude a provider on your lists for a certain period of time, but not totally ban it forever that are non-changeable. That would only serve as a cool-down period after being frustrated, which triggers your compulsive gambling behaviour.
The same thing could happen to you with the same gambling provider. Why don't you try the same slot game in a different online casino and see if the results are still the same?
I've also been playing that same game because of the high potential bonus win, but one thing I can remember about the game is that it's really hard to hit a good win, lol.

Anyway, casinos do business and have partnerships with game providers. It's really not possible for a casino to offer features like that to customers. We just need to avoid games or game providers we don't like, and I think that's not something hard to do.

[IjawMan]

I thought of that as well, but I realized that if you only ban providers, then most likely you will still learn how to play other games and you can also get addicted there.

That is a lot of work for the casinos, so it is easier if it is just self-exclusion because when you reach that point, you already have a problem in gambling. That is likely addiction in progress and you do not want to make it worse.

It is left for the addicted gambler to work on himself cause the problem is with him and not the game provider.

Making the feature in casinos will in my opinion be like chasing clouds resulting to no positive impact. I have been watching the trends of posts which are placing part of the responsibilities of players to the casinos and am not supporting some of the thoughts.

[Agbe]

People don't realize they have problem until it starts destroy their lives, that is when they start looking for solutions, same goes with gambling, gamblers don't know they are getting addicted or some might even know but thinks they can handle it before it starts to affect them, when they could have start looking for solutions before it gets worse. Gambling can be very affect the lives of one badly if they let it in and that is by spending much time to it and taking it as a source of income as you said earlier.

Most of them even denied being a gambling addict until it is obvious that they are can't denied it again. And before they realized, they have already in big problem with heavy debt to pay. Some even thought they will use their borrowed money to win big amount to pay off the debt and unknown them them they are entering a big financial problem. If the casino can make it possible to self-exclusion, it would have been a good feature. But that should for first come from the mind.

[mirakal]

If the casino can make it possible to self-exclusion, it would have been a good feature. But that should for first come from the mind.

Isn’t it already required for them? Try to check your casinos and you will see the self exclusion feature, just waiting to be activated.

What OP was talking about is instead of self exclusion, which obviously means we cannot play anymore on a certain site once we are self excluded, why not just ban the providers that offer the game we want to play all the time. That will limit our gambling exposure and with that, we will not be addicted anymore.

This is possible but i don't know any casinos has this feature.

[Zadicar]

People don't realize they have problem until it starts destroy their lives, that is when they start looking for solutions, same goes with gambling, gamblers don't know they are getting addicted or some might even know but thinks they can handle it before it starts to affect them, when they could have start looking for solutions before it gets worse. Gambling can be very affect the lives of one badly if they let it in and that is by spending much time to it and taking it as a source of income as you said earlier.

Most of them even denied being a gambling addict until it is obvious that they are can't denied it again. And before they realized, they have already in big problem with heavy debt to pay. Some even thought they will use their borrowed money to win big amount to pay off the debt and unknown them them they are entering a big financial problem. If the casino can make it possible to self-exclusion, it would have been a good feature. But that should for first come from the mind.

I can say that exclusion would really be just that a temporal solution because everything matters on gamblers mind whether they are really that serious on quitting because those casinos might really be that strict when applying those exclusions but at the time that they would really be thinking about doing gambling then the gambler would really be just that simply find or look for another place and thats something most likely the case to happen. Those features would utterly useless because it would be that not totally stopping someone to play gambling but its good if a certain casino would really be applying this kind of feature on which we know that this would really be that helpful at least but just like been said that it wouldnt really be that a solution if we do speak about completely stop on doing gambling.

[sompitonov]

Isn’t it already required for them? Try to check your casinos and you will see the self exclusion feature, just waiting to be activated.

What OP was talking about is instead of self exclusion, which obviously means we cannot play anymore on a certain site once we are self excluded, why not just ban the providers that offer the game we want to play all the time. That will limit our gambling exposure and with that, we will not be addicted anymore.

This is possible but i don't know any casinos has this feature.

The function is clear, but the player will still encounter ads on various other websites, or even offline, when they go to the store or drive and see advertising banners along the road. I mean, any such trivial mention of gambling can trigger a sudden urge to gamble, which will become almost impossible to overcome. The player will find any way to start gambling right then and there. Their brain will begin to easily generate ideas about where to go, who to borrow money from, and how to convince others of the need to lend money. By the way, it's best to be on guard, because any of our friends or relatives could fall for such a scam.

[stadus]

I thought of that as well, but I realized that if you only ban providers, then most likely you will still learn how to play other games and you can also get addicted there.

That is a lot of work for the casinos, so it is easier if it is just self-exclusion because when you reach that point, you already have a problem in gambling. That is likely addiction in progress and you do not want to make it worse.

Because it is too much to ask from the casinos. Their operation is very simple, they want to have as many users as possible so their revenue will increase. So if this kind of requirement will be given to them, users might mess around and just request certain games or providers to be blocked and then later on unblock them. That sounds like a lot of work to do and it does not help them in terms of revenue. Actually, casinos do not care whether gamblers are addicted or not because that is not their job.

[mirakal]

Isn’t it already required for them? Try to check your casinos and you will see the self exclusion feature, just waiting to be activated.

What OP was talking about is instead of self exclusion, which obviously means we cannot play anymore on a certain site once we are self excluded, why not just ban the providers that offer the game we want to play all the time. That will limit our gambling exposure and with that, we will not be addicted anymore.

This is possible but i don't know any casinos has this feature.

The function is clear, but the player will still encounter ads on various other websites, or even offline, when they go to the store or drive and see advertising banners along the road. I mean, any such trivial mention of gambling can trigger a sudden urge to gamble, which will become almost impossible to overcome. The player will find any way to start gambling right then and there. Their brain will begin to easily generate ideas about where to go, who to borrow money from, and how to convince others of the need to lend money. By the way, it's best to be on guard, because any of our friends or relatives could fall for such a scam.

I do not think we are on the same page here. I was referring to self exclusion, and that advertisement is always there because you are inside the platform where it is marketed to its users. But if you really think that self exclusion is only the last option, then you go directly to what you want to achieve. I have done it just recently, I self excluded my account in a certain casino and now my gambling is limited.

[gracreavix]

First of all, casino games are already rigged against you. I see no reason why one will think he will make it big through gambling. The whole reason for gambling is not for you to win. All they need you to do is lose.

Self-ban for some game providers may happen, but self-control over yourself shouldn't be neglected. Because at the end of the day, if you don't have self-control, it will affect other areas of your life, be it gambling or another thing you can think of.

[Satofan44]

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.

That is not something that you can sue a provider over, there is no guarantee that you would get a bonus under 3000 spins and as such you have no basis for suing.

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.

Why would they do that? It costs them money and does not bring them anything. Do you think that users are entitled to demand features just because you play somewhere? You are simply a number in the system, you do not mean anything to them -- they literally could not care less about your existence. Such non-business use case demands could only get somewhere if you could get a large portion of the users to demand it -- and your chances for that are slim.

First of all, casino games are already rigged against you.

False, don't shitpost here with your bullshit. Having a house edge is not "rigging", casinos that are reputable are provably fair and have sane house edges. Rigging a games means something else entirely, it would mean that the game does not provide results in accordance to the stated house edge but instead is rigged in favor of the casino at a much higher rate (or even selectively).

[panjul07]

-skip-

Each of us have different nemesis game provider and I agree to your suggestion on this thread for partial limit on game provider that we don’t like since casino can do this to game provider that is restricted to specific country like in my case, pragmatic is marked as unavailable to play on some casino meaning they can filter the provider out at their own will.

I have a provider that I don’t like too like thunderkick and habanero which are both sucks. I want to avoid them as much as possible whenever I gamble.

Every single gamble have their own blacklisted provider because of their own personal reason including me, I do not like some providers as well but I do not need a feature provided by casino to skip those providers.
Once I hate a provider, I will never touch it again simply by skipping it and keep playing the providers I like only.
For me even if there is a feature to hide specific providers, as long as there is ON/OFF button, it is useless.
Better to rely on ourselves when we want to avoid specific providers as it will also make us better in controlling our gambling habit.

[hyudien]

We just need to avoid games or game providers we don't like, and I think that's not something hard to do.

It's as simple as that, but this is just a theory, the practice may be more difficult, I think that's what the OP is experiencing, thus asking for such a feature, what the OP is experiencing is a kind of addiction with a combination of curiosity, and maybe he has won a decent amount of money from the game, or maybe he keeps seeing the big multipliers that other players get (this is just a guess) so it's hard to avoid playing in that game even though he realizes he has been disappointed several times lately. The feature will help him while still being able to play at the casino, in which case, it will also still benefit the casino as the temporary restriction only applies to certain providers instead of immediately excluding the casino entirely.

[darewaller]

This is the thing, if I get banned from one casino, I will just go to another casino, and if I get banned there, I will go to another. There is no shortage of casinos, we have millions of them around, some are very legit, some are not, and we should not be worried about it.

This is why getting self banned or straight up banned, is not really a solution and doesn't change a thing. We should be considering this is not going to help or benefit anyone at all, it is not going to change a thing.

[Myleschetty]

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 don't think a casino will have such features that will allow its users to ban or exclude a certain slot game. But, I'm surprised by what you said about Pragmatic slot games, which I believe to be one of the gaming services that offer players free spins that could result in a huge win after a few minutes of gameplay using funds.
I'm not sure why you encounter this kind of thing; perhaps it occurs when I'm not playing their slot machine or when you don't select the game that will grant you early free spins, as some games have different RTPs and concepts.

Unless, youre talking about features that let you favorites some games