Winning a jackpot as a self-excluded

[aioc]

We have a lot of discussions about people complaining and blaming casinos for letting them play, even though they have

requested self-exclusion, received confirmation, and eventually lost a lot of money.

But is there a scenario in which a gambler

requests a self-exclusion and receives a confirmation, but was able to play and win a jackpot.

Now, will the casino award that amount, or deny it, because he requested a self-exclusion that was confirmed but not yet

implemented? What's your take on this?

[Bitcoin Smith]

~
Now, will the casino award that amount, or deny it, because he requested a self-exclusion that was confirmed but not yet

implemented? What's your take on this?

If the casino acknowledges that the user is self-excluded then all the bets made in that period is breaking their terms of self-exclusion, while the rewards will be voided. So usually the user will lose the winning reward along with the account and the balance if there is any.

That is why it is always recommended to withdraw any balance in your casino account before requesting self exclusion and don't ever try to bypass it after that.

[Charles-Tim]

The gambling site allows the user to continue gambling and win. If the gambling site make excuses about their incompetence and shady behaviors, that means they are inviting lawsuits in a way they may lose more than the money the person won. They know he is still gambling, but when he won, they do not want him to withdraw, the gambling site may be sued even by other people.

Self-exclusion is about not allowing the person to have access to his account for the period he specified and it supposed to be like that.

If the person use another account to try to cheat, that is a different case.

[OgNasty]

I don’t really understand the self-exclusion. Either the casino lets you place bets or it doesn’t. If it does and you win, they need to pay out. If they didn’t want to pay out wins, they should have kept the player from participating in the game. It is that simple.

[serjent05]

The account will be possibley banned depending on the terms of the casino's self-exclusion.  And there is high chance of the jackpot being void because the player has no right to play when his request for self-exclusion is approved, since the confirmation is the signal that the self-exclusion is already in effect.

Another ground for voiding the jackpot is that the player who requested a self-exclusion and got approved exploited the system. He is not supposed to play effective immediately upon the approval and confirmation and yet because the system has yet to block his account from wagering, he exploited it and played.

Self-exclusion is about not allowing the person to have access to his account for the period he specified and it supposed to be like that.

Yes, it is supposed to be like that, but the player exploited the system because he found out that he had not yet been blocked, he played when he should not.

[Finestream]

There are self-excluded players that are still found on the gaming floor. I don't know if the casino fails to notice them but they are still at loss after playing, and so another profit enters the casino.

However, its a different story when someone wins a jackpot but has applied self-exclusion prior to that. Most likely, the casino will confiscate the player's share and definitely no payout that is going to happen. So seems like no self-exclusion when the player loses, but when a good win happens, that's automatic self-exclusion.

[Bitcoin Smith]

I don’t really understand the self-exclusion. Either the casino lets you place bets or it doesn’t. If it does and you win, they need to pay out. If they didn’t want to pay out wins, they should have kept the player from participating in the game. It is that simple.

What if the player lost their bet instead of winning and we had seen many such cases requesting to return their lost amount because they were in self-exclusion and still managed to place those bets.

Casinos are clear when they accept the self-exclusion or will at least hide those terms under the fine print which we should be reading whether they tell us or not and if we broke the terms and claim we didn't know then casino just ignore them.

[Alphakilo]

It's a no brainer to self exclude yourself as a gambler and then go ahead to bet and win a jackpot and then think you can claim it. This can lead to serious legal actions and am sure the gambler would lose against the house because he already shot himself in the foot with the self exclusion already activated.
The jackpot would be nullified by the gambling platform and that's just what's to be expected.

[danherbias07]

No, I don't think the gambler will receive the jackpot money.

I believe many gambling sites are doing business in their favor only. If they can find a way to get out clean by using the self-exclusion applied by the gambler, then they will probably use it. They will win even if it is taken on the court. They have the proof. Also, let us remember this is business for them. It's all about making money and not showing anyone pity.
The earlier we accept that, the easier it will be to gamble for fun only. Most of the time it will go their way, so all we can do is enjoy the games either casino or sports.

[Botnake]

The casino can show proofs that you're already self-excluded from gambling, so why did you still insist to keep playing? From that part it already shows that you are breaking the law, and you never stick to what you have requested, you could have received a penalty instead if they strictly work on it.

And now that you hit the jackpot, you ask for a reward? That is very impossible mate, you yourself knows already that your request for self-exclusion has been granted, you should have stick to the rule than bending it, you could be banned in that certain casino if ever you insist.

[fredericktaylor]

People are very greedy and always want profit not loss. When a gambler can fulfill his desires through gambling, he talks positively about gambling and when the gambler cannot make money, he starts talking morally. Greed can bring a person down a lot if the gambler gets the results as planned there is no complaint against the casino and when the results are not as expected, he starts talking bad about the casino.

I think when a person wants to end the gambling game on his own but by mistake the casino does not stop it, instead the gambler gets a chance to gamble again and wins the jackpot, then all the money cannot belong to the gambler because by mistake since the casino did not close the account the gambler was able to bet, so if the money is lost the casino is obliged to return it because it is completely the casino's fault.

[Nwada001]

requests a self-exclusion and receives a confirmation, but was able to play and win a jackpot.

Now, will the casino award that amount, or deny it, because he requested a self-exclusion that was confirmed but not yet

implemented? What's your take on this?

The casino should allow the player to withdraw the money as long as they allow him to make a deposit and place a bet instead of turning the account into a withdrawal only.

The winner should be allowed to withdraw without delay unless there have been cases against the casino where they refunded self-exclusion players of their deposit and losses; then they can use the same pattern, but where there is none, the full winnings should be given.

[un_rank]

If you allow the bet, you honor the outcome. It is already poor management to allow players to be able to bet after they self excluded but it will be even worse if you allow them bet huge and lose and then want to factor that in when they win no matter the amount.

I think the only time it makes sense to void a winning is when it is confirmed that a match was fixed and all stakes gets returned to players.

- Jay -

[Rgram]

But is there a scenario in which a gambler

requests a self-exclusion and receives a confirmation, but was able to play and win a jackpot.

Now, will the casino award that amount, or deny it, because he requested a self-exclusion that was confirmed but not yet

implemented? What's your take on this?

As we know, self-exclusion isn’t usually immediate in its implementation. It happens within a duration in which, you are given the chance to retract your decision to self-exclude and you don’t really have to do that by sending a mail or through another written statement. To self-exclude successfully, you just need to wait out the time or duration for it.

Once you proceed to gamble while you’ve already applied to self-exclude and was waiting on the duration to elapse, you immediately invalidate the self exclusion and any wins going forward ought to be awarded, except the casino policy states otherwise.

[Wiwo]

My view on this can be traced to various other cases of self exclusion, the fact that gambler's have the right to sue a casino for allowing him to gamble and lose despite initiating a self exclusion order, same applies to casino not paying for winnings from an account that have a self exclusion order, they can decide to void the winnings, or honore it it depends on their terms and conditions as far as self exclusion is concerned.

But on most casinos, self exclusion is instant and if you have to wait for sometimes before getting the account blocked then whatever happens during that time could be accepted or denied it all depends on the casino and how they handle such demands.

[Maslate]

Once self-exclusion has been filed and the casino approved it, right at that moment you are already prohibited from wagering. So everything that comes after are considered as voided transactions. If you happen to bypass your request and win, that winnings will be voided and the casino platform will confiscate your funds, it could even lead to casino monitoring your account after that incident.

Winning jackpot does not makes sense after you self-exclude yourself from different gambling games.

[blockman]

Bad casinos will not honor the win of that person and will choose to reason out that they have requested for self exclude. But as long as they're not yet self excluded, they should award and honor that jackpot for that gambler. So if it's not yet active and they're still able to gamble in that casino, there's no way for them to deny that win of that gambler. It's an elementary reasoning for them to say that there's a request of self exclusion just to avoid paying the jackpot winner the rightful amount that they've won. I haven't requested for this feature but if it's a feature that grants instantly, it's actually good to know the perspective of a representative about this matter.

[Fortify]

We have a lot of discussions about people complaining and blaming casinos for letting them play, even though they have

requested self-exclusion, received confirmation, and eventually lost a lot of money.

But is there a scenario in which a gambler

requests a self-exclusion and receives a confirmation, but was able to play and win a jackpot.

Now, will the casino award that amount, or deny it, because he requested a self-exclusion that was confirmed but not yet

implemented? What's your take on this?

Well it's a difficult one because the player should absolutely get the reward, which is obviously going to be extremely rare, but at the same time the casino should never have allowed them to gamble in the first place. With all the tech that physical casinos use today, it feels almost impossible that they could not track and prevent someone from entering. It's even easier to block such people when they play online, especially with all the KYC taking place these days. The casino is bound to deny it, at which point you better hope that the casino is based in a jurisdiction with a reasonable regulator which is generally not the case with all of these offshore island ones that crypto casinos use.

[Ziskinberg]

There's no way the casino will reward that amount, the player knows that already, but just trying to set a trap and find a better excuse. But its hard to outsmart a casino and take advantage of their own rules, in fact there are even bigger chances that a player can be fooled, but not a smart casino platform.

So get rid of that idea that chances to get paid is high. Because even if you bring it to the court, there's no possibility that the court's decision will be on your side. You bypass the rule, you deserved to be penalized and might even be banned from the casino for good.

[Davidvictorson]

We have a lot of discussions about people complaining and blaming casinos for letting them play, even though they have

requested self-exclusion, received confirmation, and eventually lost a lot of money.

But is there a scenario in which a gambler

requests a self-exclusion and receives a confirmation, but was able to play and win a jackpot.

Now, will the casino award that amount, or deny it, because he requested a self-exclusion that was confirmed but not yet

implemented? What's your take on this?

One of the issues I have with some people who self-exclude is that, why do they eventually go back to play at that same casino? What is the use of self-exclusion if they know that they won’t be committed to it. I also fault most casinos who have this feature but it looks as if it is it there just to add to one of the features of the casino without them really implementing it. To answer your question, if the casino can accept the money from the player on self-exclusion, they should also pay the player their win. However, I know that the money will be lost to gambling again because that player is also exhibiting signs of gambling addiction.