Winning a jackpot as a self-excluded

[Junii]

I believe fairness is simple. If the casinos accepted the bets also accepted the deposit and also allows the player to participate then the casino is also responsible for the outcome. I have seen many cases in past  where casinos tried to void winnings because a player was self excluded but the situation often becomes complicated because the casino's own systems are failed to block the account on time. It is obvious that if a casino allows someone to keep playing after a self exclusion request has been confirmed then the casinos should be responsible for both the losses and the winnings. Rules should not only apply when the player just loses the bet. Because these casinos often seem to remember the rules only when they are the ones losing money. When the money is flowing in their favor they usually don't  give a f**k about the rules.

[mirakal]

The casino will have to pay you because that self-exclusion was not implemented properly, because if it was, you should not have been able to gamble in the first place.

It would not be fair if they allow you to gamble and do nothing when you lose, but then hold your winnings when you win the jackpot. I think an honest casino would not scam its users that way, so if you are playing in a casino you believe is honest, they should pay your winnings first, then self-exclude your account after and still allow you to withdraw your remaining balance.

Because for me, self-exclusion simply means you are no longer allowed to bet, not that the casino can just take your money or refuse to pay what you already won.

[Jaycoinz]

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.

But there are very little casino that would do this since they have the upper hand to deny the user of his winnings. There are so many things that could go wrong for the gambler too because he has already initiated the mode already but like you said of the casino is genuine and value their customers then they would give the winner despite that he already initiated the option for self exclusion. Although am still trying rap my head around how this sought of mistake can where the casino would delay to activate self exclusion option because almost all the times I have used the option, it's always automatic.

[Yaunfitda]

I believe fairness is simple. If the casinos accepted the bets also accepted the deposit and also allows the player to participate then the casino is also responsible for the outcome. I have seen many cases in past  where casinos tried to void winnings because a player was self excluded but the situation often becomes complicated because the casino's own systems are failed to block the account on time. It is obvious that if a casino allows someone to keep playing after a self exclusion request has been confirmed then the casinos should be responsible for both the losses and the winnings. Rules should not only apply when the player just loses the bet. Because these casinos often seem to remember the rules only when they are the ones losing money. When the money is flowing in their favor they usually don't  give a f**k about the rules.

In the real world that should be the case, everything is simple and fair. However, casinos are business operators, they have the house edge and so they will take advantage of everything. And even if you sue them, I don't think that you will win against them. There was even one case here in our country that a supposedly big winner, however, the casino says that there is a glitch in their system so her wins is invalid. So most likely that will be the case here, casinos are not going to honor as the individual should have made himself not to play because the person is self-excluded.

[Agbe]

First of all, your line spacing is not normal, it makes reading break and not smoothly and you have answered your question already before it arrived. You said they have not implemented the self-exclusion request from the gambler therefore, they have to pay the gambler because they delayed the request and he gambled and won. They have to pay him with the full wins without delay.

[Pandu Geddon]

I have never encountered a case like that, but perhaps if that scenario happened, there are several possibilities. The casino still pays the gambler's winnings, and the other, they void the winnings and do not pay because they consider the bet invalid. After receiving confirmation of successfully excluding oneself, the account should be suspended until the predetermined time limit. Whether the casino did it on purpose or the feature simply does not work properly.

[bubilas]

The casino will have to pay you because that self-exclusion was not implemented properly, because if it was, you should not have been able to gamble in the first place.

It would not be fair if they allow you to gamble and do nothing when you lose, but then hold your winnings when you win the jackpot. I think an honest casino would not scam its users that way, so if you are playing in a casino you believe is honest, they should pay your winnings first, then self-exclude your account after and still allow you to withdraw your remaining balance.

Because for me, self-exclusion simply means you are no longer allowed to bet, not that the casino can just take your money or refuse to pay what you already won.

This is true, but only in relation to honest casinos. And dishonest casinos use all their tricks to emphasize the argument that you are not eligible for the jackpot. They will make some vague rules so that later it can be pointed out that "you requested self excluded, and therefore you played for bonus money at all." I'm exaggerating, but the meaning of evidence from dishonest casinos will be exactly that. Because they won't want to give back the money at any cost, and one hundred percent will also ask for a whole bunch of verification documents in addition.

[Japinat]

Because they won't want to give back the money at any cost, and one hundred percent will also ask for a whole bunch of verification documents in addition.

This is an indirect way of denying the winnings, they will go through the process but in reality they really have no intention of paying.

Since they are in control of the process, they will approve or decline, even if the documents forwarded are complete they can easily decline it, and it is hard to fight in that matter if they are not transparent. No one can force them to show the conversation because they will always say it is against policy, and that private conversation will remain between the client and the casino.

[len01]

Sometimes, even after a player has confirmed their self-exclusion, certain casinos still allow them to continue placing bets. This usually happens with scam casinos that only care about draining as much money as possible from their users.

So the answer is quite simple, if a casino allows a self-excluded player to keep gambling despite a confirmed exclusion, then sooner or later, if that player hits a big win, the casino will likely refuse to pay out the winnings. In many cases, they may even block or ban the player's account altogether.

[rbynxx]

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?

Is this scenario true or you're just making it? Well, even if they request a self exclusion they don't have have the right to confiscate those winnings and they should award it. They should have approved the self exclusion first but I think the user already got bored that they decided to play while waiting.

[acroman08]

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 honor the win, I mean, as you said, the self-exclusion is not implemented yet, also, it would be the casino's fault if the gambler is still able to access the account and place a bet when the request for self-exclusion has been confirmed. It would look bad for the casino if they don't honor the win.

[freedomgo]

Never seen a situation like this here in the forum, but I saw one before, I just cannot remember the name anymore.

He blamed the casino for allowing him to continue gambling despite already asking for self-exclusion. He believed that if the casino had disallowed him to gamble after that request was received, he would not have lost his balance.

Because of that, he made a scam accusation against the casino and wanted to get a refund for the amount he lost. (crazy, right?-

[coin-investor]

All I know is that the exclusion should be implemented first, acknowledging that it is just another step, but implementation finalizes the exclusion.
I'd like to believe the win is legit and that he deserves it because he deposited and played without interruption. The player is still at the mercy of the casino, so if you decide to self-exclude, make sure you have fully decided and do so at your discretion.

[Bitcoin Smith]

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.

To be honest, the casino has the self-exclusion feature is only because it is mandatory to have to have certain license and they are not operating a service to take care of the people. The more they wager then more revenue for them and it's just plain math of business and there is no room for emotions here.

So casino can take the money if the user lost the bet and the casino can take the money if the user won it as well because it is mentioned clearly in their self exclusion terms.

[sunsilk]

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?

That's tricky, they can really say that they won't pay the winnings because the user have already requested to be self excluded but luckily won a jackpot.

I think this is where the negotiation will go and that's already kind if the casino does that. Because they can reject that and the user will just take their time to be wasted for waiting.

A good case study if there's one that actually happened.

[Zlantann]

What's your take on this?

The question that came to my.mind is will casino give the player back the amount if they had lost? I have seen people in scam accusations asking casino to return part or all the amount they had lost ok gambling because the casino refused to implement their self exclusion request. I have not followed any of these cases to know how they ended. I think we might have refer to the terms of service of the casino.

Nevertheless, my take is that if the casino refunds losses incurred in this situation, then the gambler might have to forfeit the funds. But if they have to tradition of not compensating gamblers when they lose because their self-exclusion request was not implemented, then the gambler would have to keep the wins.

[LUCKMCFLY]

So casino can take the money if the user lost the bet and the casino can take the money if the user won it as well because it is mentioned clearly in their self exclusion terms.

I agree with this; the casino has to do it this way. If you've lost and lost more, then there's nothing more you can do. That's why self-exclusion is a delicate matter. Before doing it, they should ask themselves if it's really what the player wants or not, because basically things go down the line between winning and losing. Nobody wants to lose even after winning, which is why the decisions we make in our lives are what determine our destiny.

[Agbamoni]

Is it even possible that a gambler can place a bet when in self-exclusion? Surely the casino must pay out because they allowed the bet to go through, knowing fully well the gambler requested for self-excusion. Perhaps they expect the gambler to lose. Basically, I do not imagine something of this nature to ever be possible, but if by mistake it is possible, that shows incompetence by the casino.

[fullfitlarry]

Perhaps everyone could also look at this case,

And not one of them have a successful case against those casinos that they accused.

• ⚠️[SCAM] Toshi.bet - $7,276 Refused - Guilty Verdict by Casino Guru (Safety LOW)
  
• Gamdom - Self Exclusion NOT Honoured
  
• [SCAM / IRRESPONSIBLE GAMBLING PRACTICES] – Sportbet.one
  

[Peanutswar]

They can leave or abandon the casino even without the self-exclusion if they really want to. Now if the request is not guaranteed with the casino and the account are still active, they can still play because if they requested probably, they would immediately terminate the access. Now if the player wins the match AFAIK the casino most of the time required them a specific time to make a withdrawal with their asset if there's any. Now if the time passes, and they did not withdraw the funds it's their accountability and not the casino itself.