Winning a jackpot as a self-excluded

[ZeroVinsonN]

This is as simple as it can also be complicated depending on how people actually look at it, the casino isn't supposed to let that person play again under any circumstance unless their self exclusion was lifted and the person should have stuck with their decision to not gamble during the time the self exclusion was in play so at the end of the day both parties are responsible but then gambling addiction is a thing so the person can argue to have been an addict putting the fault on the casino for letting him play even though he already self excluded.

[MainIbem]

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?

I'll blame the gambler cause why going back to play after requesting self-exclusion which was confirmed, the confirmation show that the platform has accepted your request and even though you're still allowed to use their platform they can withhold your rewards if you win based on your request and confirmation for self-exclusion.

[Sim_card]

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.

But it's not supposed to be so, because I have read several post here of someone complaining that the casino still allows him to gamble and takes his money if he losses after the confirmation of being self excluded. So, why wouldn't they pay him if he hits the jackpot. With this, it's clear that the casino is only after your money and they're looking for every means to take from you and not pay you your wins, if the can. It's funny how humans behave.

[eisen33]

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?

Self-exclusion has always seemed like a last resort to me. If you have enough discipline, then when you realize it's time to stop, you can do it on your own. If someone doesn't want to stop, self-exclusion won't really help because there are dozens of other casinos where they can simply register and keep playing. As for self-excluding and then missing out on a jackpot, that's such a rare occurrence that it may never happen at all. The chances of that are so small that I don't think it's something worth worrying about.

[viljy]

This is actually a subtle question. Well, first of all, it is clear that the casino uses a self-exclusion request as a reason not to pay out winnings, regardless of whether the self-exclusion actually took effect. The self-exclusion countdown will be calculated from the moment the request is approved, and the casino will indicate that it was immediately. But this can be disputed.

After all, what is self-exclusion? This is the actual inability to gamble. Why is this important? Because this addicted player is not capable of self-restraint, he can only be limited, in fact. In this case, simply declaring the beginning of self-exclusion without an actual restriction on the player cannot be considered the beginning of the period of self-exclusion. Therefore, any winnings during this period are legitimate, since there was no actual restriction for this gambling game.

This argument is based on the fact that self-exclusion is only an actual restriction of access to the casino, and not a declared and approved one. Due to the nature (inability to self-control) of self-exclusion itself.

[Karl_3000]

This is as simple as it can also be complicated depending on how people actually look at it, the casino isn't supposed to let that person play again under any circumstance unless their self exclusion was lifted and the person should have stuck with their decision to not gamble during the time the self exclusion was in play so at the end of the day both parties are responsible but then gambling addiction is a thing so the person can argue to have been an addict putting the fault on the casino for letting him play even though he already self excluded.

What if the person use another account for it? It will be easy for the gambling site to get away with it by saying the person is using multiple accounts to cheat.

If the person use the same account which he used for self-exclusion, the gambling site need to pay him the money to avoid lawsuits. The gambling site is not right because why do they allow the person to continue to gamble with his account after he went for self-exclusion.

[Achalugo BTC]

Self-exclusion has always seemed like a last resort to me. If you have enough discipline, then when you realize it's time to stop, you can do it on your own. If someone doesn't want to stop, self-exclusion won't really help because there are dozens of other casinos where they can simply register and keep playing. As for self-excluding and then missing out on a jackpot, that's such a rare occurrence that it may never happen at all. The chances of that are so small that I don't think it's something worth worrying about.

It will be a win - win for any gambler that is able to control themselves and stop or quit themselves from gambling, even though they are winning from it or not, because being able to know when to play and when to give themselves break helps them to find it easy to beat their emotions and also to beat gambling, as they will be gambling according to what the rules, which they won't be carried away by the excitement of winnings or by the pressure of constant losses, as its best way for one to self - exclusive from gambling.

[Porfirii]

-snip-

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?

OP, are you basing yourself on some case you know of, or it's just a hypothesis? If you self-exclude, as some other members said before, you shouldn't be able to gamble in first place (and you shouldn't want to try either), but I agree that if the system didn't work properly and allowed you to play, you should still get paid. A different thing that we could argue on is if you lose money due to an error on their part in not acceding to your request, but I think that in the case you are talking about there is no doubt, and that any platform that relies on it to not pay shouldn't be considered very reliable.

[L E G E N D A R Y]

I'll blame the gambler cause why going back to play after requesting self-exclusion which was confirmed, the confirmation show that the platform has accepted your request and even though you're still allowed to use their platform they can withhold your rewards if you win based on your request and confirmation for self-exclusion.

Its a choice for them to make, as they are in control of how they behave, some gamblers can ask for self-exclusion from casino platform and after a while, they returned to gamble for full time, as they can't withstand being away from gambling, and this is cause by the result of indiscipline, some gamblers will know that this particular act its killing them, but yet, will go for it. Well, that's their choice because they take every responsibility of their actions.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

There has not been any incident like this before but peradventure such kind of thing happens, the casino has no rights to deny the player their winnings because in the first place they allowed the  person to play on that casino even after self exclusion was confirmed. If they refuse such payout, that means they are shady and never to be trusted by anyone but I doubt that they will refuse payout because they actually let the player to be able to play on the casino.

[imthegreat]

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?

I think that a bad casino will quickly explain to such a player that the jackpot will not be given to him. We already know so many stories about how dishonest online casinos like to request a lot of KYC documents from those players who are trying to withdraw more money to the casino than they deposited. And therefore, if a gambler requested an exclusion from the activity itself and it was under consideration, then dishonest casinos will immediately approve this exclusion for him, and naturally this will happen after he wins any decent amount. And of course, the casino will indicate the moment that the inactivation approval came to him a second before the win.

[knowngunman]

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?

Casinos are always looking for an excuse to deny you winning. It's obvious, they'll not pay you the jackpot. You request for self exclusion and the casino confirmed your request. By implication, you're not supposed to play even though the casino is yet to implement the exclusion in your dashboard. Although, the casino is at fault for allowing a user to place bet during self exclusion but the delay for implementing the request might be due to technical reasons but that delay is not a permission for you to play either. Now, both parties are at fault and that winning can never be paid because both the gambler and the casino breach agreement.

[bakasabo]

I can see following outcome on situation described in first post. If casino is reputed, popular and large, then there would no chances a person could keep on gambling when he has turned on self-exclusion option. There is no chance that such casino will have a UI or system bug that will allow excluded gambler to play. If if it possible to keep on playing even though self-exclusion option is turned on, then this is a flag that either casino isnt fair, or casino isnt up-to-date/modern/had enough resources to spot and fix not working self-exclusion option. Nevertheless, such casino will not let gambler withdraw jackpot. The casino will tell it was a bug and will cancel all bets made during self-exclusion.

[dezoel]

OP, are you basing yourself on some case you know of, or it's just a hypothesis? If you self-exclude, as some other members said before, you shouldn't be able to gamble in first place (and you shouldn't want to try either), but I agree that if the system didn't work properly and allowed you to play, you should still get paid. A different thing that we could argue on is if you lose money due to an error on their part in not acceding to your request, but I think that in the case you are talking about there is no doubt, and that any platform that relies on it to not pay shouldn't be considered very reliable.

Usually in the case of a self-excluded member not being able to do anything because the system is doing work and having no excuse due to member self-exclusion, but as mentioned in any case, he is enjoying and playing this is surely going to be part of gambling revenue, and they surely give all winnings to the member.

In the last few years, they never had things related to this because the system worked properly and allowed all settlements, but still all possibilities are also available in this case. The casino decision could be preferable because they have the right to do so, even if it is lost for the player or a win case as well.

[hyudien]

I don't know how the self-exclusion option works, but in the description someone can't access their account for the time they want, so why can they still make deposits? does it take days for the casino to confirm to exclude the account? it's a bit confusing. And if the case is as you said OP, the winnings should still be paid by the casino, there is no reason whatsoever even though they have self-excluded but can still play, maybe it will be used as an excuse for them, but the winnings are still valid. You can take it to legal action if the casino does not pay.

[Perfectbaby]

I don’t see anything here that is very difficult for you not to understand.. at first you requested a self-exclusion and it was confirmed so what then made you to go back to gamble there again or to know if actually everything was done correctly?
Of course, the casinos should not release the funds to you or even allows you to have access because you had already requested for self-exclusion it is better for you to leave the site and never to go back because you do not know if that takes them 72 hours to automatically delete or lock your account and you went back to gamble there again, to me this is not right as you yourself have failed to also abide by the self exclusion policy hence you should not be allowed to make withdrawal even though it’s a life changing opportunity you had over there.

[MArsland]

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?

So, there is some sort of pause that the gambler takes advantage of after he applies for self exclusion? During that pause, if he wins the bet he is entitled to receive the winnings.

The casino cannot withhold it due to their delay in activating the self exclusion account so there is no legal time yet.
I think this kind of thing should be addressed by the casino, if the gambler has applied for self exclusion then there should be an automated system that locks his account from gambling activities, a kind of pre exclusion phase.

[AmaGold70]

In the right sense, if a gambler applies for self exclusion in a casino site, the gambler is not suppose to have access to gamble on the same site again, and if eventually the gambler is able to gamble on that same site where he or she has applied for self exclusion, and the gambler wins, then the gambler should be paid. If the gambler wins, and the casino or gambling site refuses to pay, I think the gambling company can be litigated, and legal action could be taken against the betting company.
More also, their are situations where by someone or a gambler can apply for self exclusion, and later reapply for acceptance, and consideration will also be given depending on the terms and conditions of the gambling company.

[SamReomo]

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 is genuine then such a casino will give jackpot money to the gambler even if he/she requested self-exclusion but if the casino is known for its shady activities then such a casino will always make excuse of self-exclusion request and won't give any thing to that gambler. I personally think that a good casino should give jackpot amount to the gambler because he/she won it and it's casino's own fault to not confirm the self-exclusion on time. However, winning a jackpot in such scenario works in theory but in real life such a thing never happens.

[CryptoYar]

Personally, I am quite certain that casinos will make use of your self exclusion scenario to decline to pay out enormous jackpot. The compliance department will be quick as lightning finding a terms violation of whatever sort whenever you bag out a furrow lot of them; but the time that you hit a massive winning streak, it is as if they like you the less for it. I think that it is utterly unjust that they are only too happy to take away money that a prohibited player has lost in game and that they are inconsiderate enough to take away a winning bet on the same rulebook. You are not supposed to have any account if you have been excluded, however. Then if they let you navigate their system, to hoard money, and refuse you possibly the right to prize is nothing brief of corporate greed.