Winning a jackpot as a self-excluded

[Sanitough]

Most of those who keep complaining are mostly those who are violating the law first. Because even if they're completely aware of what they're doing, they still find reason to seek validity to act like they're the victims, and the casino turns out the culprit.

Remember that once self-exclusion is finally decided by the gambler, whether its already implemented or not, then there's no reason that he should be seen still playing. Otherwise, it breaks the purpose of self-exclusion program. And for that, the more reason that the player should be given punishment, aside from not getting a reward because that transaction considered void.

[Hispo]

I think it is really simple though.
If one is able to gamble on a casino, when anything which is won during that session (even afterl requesting self-exclusion) is supposed to be payed to the gambler and allow them to withdraw all of it to their personal wallets.

This would not be a problem if some casinos did not take so much time to effectively apply self-exclusion to their gamblers. Shady casinos technically allow to request for self-exclusion, in in reality they continue to allow their gamblers to risk their money, which is a direct breach of the terms of service of the own casino.

Fortunately I have never been in such situation in which I have found myself gambling after asking for self-exclusion, and I have no plans to self-exclude any time soon.

[JiiBs]

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.

This could often be the result of a split second decision. Mostly when gamblers come by some huge loss or even loss of money that they can’t afford to loose given the importance of that money to them at that time. Then you find them trying to self exclude only to come back and gamble again.
Self exclusion should be at an instant where, users that wants to self exclude wouldn’t have access to their accounts fully except, an option to be allowed back in after a defined time frame.
Any casino or bookie that allows you to gamble while you self excluded yourself, they should pay the full amount.

[Questat]

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.

I don't think it works simple as that. There are still instances that casinos fail to enforce them, except for those who intentionally bypass this self-exclusion ban. But that does not lose sight of the fact that your request for that ban has already been accepted by the casino, so rest assured as a responsible gambler, you have to follow the rule and won't dare create a violation.

At the end of the day, if this kind of case will be brought to investigation, with valid proofs coming from the casino itself, the player will still appear as the one breaking the rule of the casino.

[alegotardo]

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?

In Brazil, the maximum time for regulated sites to confirm self-exclusion is 72 hours... at least we have a deadline, but it is quite long.

From what I've consulted, I have not found anything about what happens to any prize a person wins during this review period... whether it should be paid or denied, so I think that depends only on the interpretation of the rule and perhaps a legal dispute if the user wants to go further (and it is worthwhile).

However, under Brazilian law, when the user requests self-exclusion, they acknowledge that they will not be able to access these betting platforms. So I understand that if they continue playing after making the request, they are already breaking the law and would not be entitled to the amount won.

But... that is my interpretation of Brazilian law... this must vary considerably from one country to another.

[Darker45]

I haven't read of such a case, but I guess this will be taken differently by different casinos. I suspect, however, that many casinos would void the bet. That the player has taken advantage of the self-exclusion feature would make a convenient excuse for them not to pay. It would be messy if the jackpot prize is huge. It might even reach the courts.

For me, the casino should pay. In addition, they should even be penalized for allowing self-excluded users to continue playing.

[Dave1]

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?

My take is that the casino might not give the winnings to the player. They can simply reason that you have been in self-exclusion. And casino won't admit their mistakes on allowing that person to play again. As you have said, there are multiple cases already of players that are supposedly on the self-inclusion and yet was able to deposit again and play.

And they can make it as if the casino is now the victim of this player. The individual should now that he is in that program, so he violated the terms and conditions. Thus his winning is invalid and voided.

I know it's double-edge standard, but that's how I see it.

[Cointxz]

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?

This is a tricky situation but casino can use the fact that the account itself was already self-excluded to forfeit the jackpot. IIRC there’s an instances in the past that a player profit was confiscated because he has an alt account that was already self excluded in the casino.

It’s like bypassing the casino self-exclusion case. But this is a case to case basis depending on the casino considerations on each situation.

Some trusted casino might give the profit as way to advertise their reputation while others might choose to confiscate since the account was already self-excluded.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

My take is this, if a casino allows a player to continue playing despite giving confirmation of his self-exclusion, then they are obliged to pay out his winnings since they didn't keep to the terms of the self-exclusion themselves which should prevent the gambler from playing. Self-exclusion as a feature doesn't make much sense to me since the gambler can still go ahead and register in another platform and continue to gamble, so self-exclusion looks like loss of client to the casino which might be the reason they still allow them play which is not correct actually, but in this case a win is secured and they must pay it. The gambler can seek legal battle if they don't pay his winning, they should be fined as well as a penalty for allowing and self-excluded client to continue playing.

[Mia Chloe]

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.

If they don't pay out the customer I'll definitely consider them a shady service. If a customer is requesting for self exclusion what is expected is an immediate execution or better still a defined time frame within which the exclusion would be effective. If they don't do any of this it means you can't really trust them for regular plays.

On a positive side it's kind of an advantage to the casino too. In that considering the fact that he was able to win even after self exclusion actually suggests he still had an existing balance.

[Julien_Olynpic]

The legal significance of self-exclusion is, in essence, the same for both the player and the platform. For the player, it constitutes a prohibition against using the excluded account for gaming purposes; for the casino, it signifies an inability to provide gaming services to the self-excluded individual. I fail to understand why such simple matters give rise to so many questions. Admittedly, the possibility of fraud remains; however, we are not addressing that scenario here, but rather proceeding from the premise that the individual has voluntarily excluded themselves from the gaming process—and, consequently, can neither play nor win.

[Oasisman]

The casino will probably deny the winning in this case, especially when they see a pending self-exclusion request. However, the user can pursue this case legally, depending whether the casino overlooked his request allowing him to continue playing or if the casino had a time allowance before the request takes in full effect.

These self exclusion thing is kind of complicated, as I've seen a few people taking advantage of it because the casino was complacently disregarding the request, thinking that those users will just quit voluntarily.

I think it's time for the casino to implement a "one-click" self exclusionary button with an option of how long does the user wants their account suspended, so the casino will prevent these kind of claims.

[bitbollo]

Based on amount, an user would make anything possible to demonstrate that he is entitled to the win
But self excluded players would play again, and probably these money could be just "trapped" in some long process to withdraw.... due this status.
Most of the time, there is a ToS that already clarify this aspect. in some areas it could be possible to also have a law that regulate this aspect.
I have seen similar scenarios in the past (likewise wins after a self exclusion), likewise in a sport bet.

[robelneo]

When you're self-excluded, you are barred from logging in and cannot deposit or place bets. Confirmation and implementation are two different things; they confirmed that you are asking for self-exclusion, but they haven't implemented the self-exclusion features of their platform, whereas you can still access your account and bet, so any winnings that you accumulated are all legal, and they should allow you to withdraw them.

[iv4n]

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

Well, this is different from the usual self-exclusion discussions where people complain how they self-excluded themselves, but the casino let them play anyway, and they eventually lost the money. It's hard to say what the casino would do... somehow, I have a feeling that some casinos would deny the winnings, and some would allow a player to withdraw.

There's too much drama (and abuse, in my opinion) about self-exclusion... I have never used it, and I don't plan to. The best self-exclusion is logging out and simply not visiting the casino.

[yahoo62278]

Depending on the casino I believe they would use this as an excuse to not pay. Not sure about bigger sites, but the smaller ones I feel would look at this like Christmas and tell you sorry but we are keeping your money and here's your exclusion.

[jcojci]

Casinos will not let that guy play while he requested a self-exclusion and if he activates that feature, he can't use his account to play and the only thing he can do is register a new account. But that could trigger suspicion because they see that the guy requests a self-exclusion and not let him continue play gambling.

Casinos can deny his winning because that guy broke the rules but if he withdraws his winning and then requests a self-exclusion, I think he can still get his winning money especially if the transaction process is automatic.

[Somegory]

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?

Now I like this one, I wonder how such people will react if they don't allow them to withdraw because of s of exclusion, some online casino can even take advantage of self exclusion so that they won't pay the winner lol.

Self exclusion feels like a joke to me, it's like something for kids who are into gambling and not adults, I would rather fight my own battle trying to become disciplined than begging others to restrain me from gambling.

Many online casinos will definitely not pay, if you are the type that uses self exclusion let this be a reckoning to you all, you can at one time find yourself in this position.

[TopTort777]

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?

For sure casino will solve this situation in their favor They most likely hide behind "it was a bug and you should not have played" and "our decision is final". And gambler can do everything, but that is not going to help him anyway to get his jackpot paid. As a good gesture casino might return him bets he has made during self-exclusion while gambling until jackpot. Someone really think that casino would just give jackpot so easily?

[Zadicar]

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?

This would for sure go into legal debate or situation on which there would really be providing of evidence specially if the winner would really be that wanting to fight if the exclusion hadnt been granted then as long you do able to show proofs then you have have a fight and won up. Pretty sure the casino would really be making up that exclusion to be the main reason for you not to be granted or be paid up with that jackpot and thats the main reason but as you as a gambler and wanting or request for exclusion but you do still play because it hadnt been that granted by the casino then i dont really see the anything wrong with that since the casino do still have lapses on why they havent granted that exclusion but actually it would really be that still a disadvantage considering that you are against with the casino have tons of money if we do speak about legal case.