Winning a jackpot as a self-excluded

[AHOYBRAUSE]

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?

As long as a self exclusion is not active obviously every bet a player wins must be awarded, simple as that. I mean if they would actually act faster then a possible win wouldn't have happened in the first place. Personally I hate when casinos are slow with processing a self exclusion request. Some site require a player to send an email and then maybe even reconfirm and other nonsense. In this time the player might have lost even more just because they want to drag the process and milk the player even more.

That's why I really like the "responsible gambling" approach from stake for example. Not only do they have countless option from self exclusion to break of play, wager limits, deposit limits and so on. But also evey limit you activate starts basically immeditatly, max after some seconds.
No stupid back and forth if you "really" want to take this action or whatever. Just a straight up limit/exclusion until it's lifted.

[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.

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.

If the person uses a different account then you can't hold the casino responsible in anyway since as far as they are concerned that was a different person and they also have to pay the winnings because still they are different accounts meaning different people, if it's the same account then the casino will mostly be a fault since they could have prevented that account from being able to still gamble, but it's not all that easy to win against a casino in court.

[coinrifft]

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.

If the person uses a different account then you can't hold the casino responsible in anyway since as far as they are concerned that was a different person and they also have to pay the winnings because still they are different accounts meaning different people, if it's the same account then the casino will mostly be a fault since they could have prevented that account from being able to still gamble, but it's not all that easy to win against a casino in court.

Right, but that won't happened in my opinion. It's all going to be the fault of the gamblers themselves. They are in the program of self-exclusion, they shouldn't even try to test out the system of the casino if indeed if it is being followed or not.

If they created as second account, then that is the obvious fault of them as well. So gamblers are in a no win situation here and won't pay that winning jackpot if they found out that this gamblers have violated their terms under self-inclusion and the terms of the casino in general.

[bakasabo]

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?-

I also remember that story where a person has lost thousands even though he has used sefl-exclusion option. As far as I remember casino hasnt refunded him anything and replied that they are sorry because it turned out self-exclusion feature was not working at all; they thanked him for finding this bug.

Back to topic theme. I dont think such situation will ever happen. I think that people who win jackpots are not one-time gamblers or newbies with first gambling experience, but are people who constantly gamble. They have a goal. I doubt that they will ever turn on this feature.

[adultcrypto]

I don't know the reason casinos open the accounts of those who have applied for self-exclusion, I feel it is wrong and does not speak well about the reputation of the casino. I have not read anywhere about a player who self-excluded won a jackpot, it may happen but none of them have come forward to state it publicly and I don't even expect them to be able to do that because it may work against them. Some shady casinos may even deny them their winning siting the self-exclusion as excuse because during that time they were not supposed to be able use their casino accounts.

[Betwrong]

~ 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 if a gambler requested a self-exclusion, but was able to play afterwards, that means because of some mistake he wasn't excluded. I can't imagine a situation where such a player wins a jackpot and is then denied payment. I mean, it happens automatically. The game has no idea that he requested a self-exclusion before.

[gracreavix]

If it was awarded by the casino and it didn't state that it will be followed duly, then that holds no ground. If the government gets involved and it's backed by law, then it will be the fault of the casino.

As of now, that holds no ground and the casino isn't responsible for any of it. Even though it was confirmed, the casino has the right to cancel or give out the win to the bettor. As long as all this is not properly stated in the terms and conditions, then that self-excluded written note or PDF file is obsolete.

[Zadicar]

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.

If the person uses a different account then you can't hold the casino responsible in anyway since as far as they are concerned that was a different person and they also have to pay the winnings because still they are different accounts meaning different people, if it's the same account then the casino will mostly be a fault since they could have prevented that account from being able to still gamble, but it's not all that easy to win against a casino in court.

Right, but that won't happened in my opinion. It's all going to be the fault of the gamblers themselves. They are in the program of self-exclusion, they shouldn't even try to test out the system of the casino if indeed if it is being followed or not.

If they created as second account, then that is the obvious fault of them as well. So gamblers are in a no win situation here and won't pay that winning jackpot if they found out that this gamblers have violated their terms under self-inclusion and the terms of the casino in general.

Actually the casino has some mistakes or lapses too on which if a certain user asked for some exclusion then the casino should be granted it out specially if its a feature or a function on which the casino does have. What would be the purpose of that self exclusion if it wasnt working or not being given at all in the first place? Pretty sure as a gambler who do ask out for such block or exclusion will definitely be having those kind of questions or pointing out their fingers that if they been just simply block the account or exclude at the time of request then he/she wont really be able to hit up that jackpot and now the casino hasnt done something with that and now the user or gambler did hit up a jackpot then its just that understandable that he would really be arguing with that considering the exclusion didnt function well?

[Livingleged]

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 won’t even let you play  anything once it’s being activated by you for that particular timeframe you exclude your self, until the duration of you exclude your self elapses. but if you have running games before you activated the self exclusion it will keep you running and if your ticket is won, you’ll definitely be credited and you also will be able to withdraw your fund. Self exclusion allows you to withdrawal but you can’t use the balance to stake again. So your story isn’t somehow true because I am speaking from multiple experiences.

[Strongkored]

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've never heard of a player who has self-excluded and won a jackpot. Instead, they usually complain because they can still play despite the self-exclusion.
Because I have never heard of something like what you mentioned, it means that when a player has self-excluded, it means that he really cannot play at that casino unless he registers again with different data.

If the casino hasn't confirmed the request, the winnings should be awarded to the player.

[Japinat]

If the casino hasn't confirmed the request, the winnings should be awarded to the player.

You quoted the words, yet it seems you did not understand it. 

He said he already received confirmation but was still able to play. So the implementation was not done yet, although the casino already confirmed that it received the request. In that way, it is the lapse of the casino and they will have to pay the winnings, because if they had done their job, the gambler would not have been able to gamble anymore.

I also believe if it is the opposite, a gambler who loses cannot request for a refund.

[Mahiyammahi]

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.

But there's a lot's of case a gambler requested self exclusion and still they olaced bet and lost. There is always a delay from casino ends. I know there's always some loophole in law , those who knows well how can exploit it always wins the legal terms rules.

Op your Curiosity is valid and genuine. Didn't saw this types of cases mich but still there's a possibility that it can happen with anyone. But I think casino can refuse to pay cause user has agreed on self exclude.

[r_victory]

I believe that if the self-exclusion was confirmed and the casino can prove it, the bets are invalid. Therefore, the prize should not be paid unless the casino decides to do so. Now, considering the same situation but the opposite happened and he lost, should the casino reimburse the lost amount?

If the gambler requested self-exclusion, they should not have placed any bets subsequently.

[xLays]

I remember I read here on bitcointalk about someone who is in self-exclusion but despite being self-excluded, he was still able to gamble on the site. Because of this, he created scam accusation thread here in bitcointalk, questioning why the casino allowed someone like him a gambling addict who had already self-excluded to continue playing.

In the end, if I understood the case correctly the casino compensated this user because he was still able to gamble even after self-exclusion had been approved.

I haven't seen scenario exactly like OP's ask, but considering it involves jackpot winnings and assuming amount of money is big there's possibility that this could be used as alibi for not paying out the jackpot. I think those winnings would likely be considered forfeited.

[macson]

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

I think that if the person still managed to win the jackpot even though he had requested to be self-excluded, the casino should have given him the money, because the problem here is why the casino didn't prevent the person from playing in the first place? If they are thinking of running away from their responsibilities by playing on the word that the person is self-excluded, that means that they are only causing problems for themselves, since the player has the right to take issue with it.

[Cantsay]

From how I have seen casinos behave, some of these casinos still allow people to gamble despite them opting for self-exclusion and when they lose they allow the gambler take the responsibility of not being able to keep to themselves while in self-exclusion but when they manage to hit something good, they’d use their ToS as a tool to fight the gambler and make sure he doesn’t get the money he won.

So for this case, the outcome is already certain, the casino is not going to award the reward to the gambler, they’ll probably just cause some issues and make sure the gambler doesn’t get the money, it’s as simple as that.

[stadus]

From how I have seen casinos behave, some of these casinos still allow people to gamble despite them opting for self-exclusion and when they lose they allow the gambler take the responsibility of not being able to keep to themselves while in self-exclusion but when they manage to hit something good, they’d use their ToS as a tool to fight the gambler and make sure he doesn’t get the money he won.

So for this case, the outcome is already certain, the casino is not going to award the reward to the gambler, they’ll probably just cause some issues and make sure the gambler doesn’t get the money, it’s as simple as that.

Actually, it should be easier for the casino to not allow a gambler to play after self-exclusion, since they are in control of the account.

So if they still allow it, that means the self-exclusion was not activated properly, and if the user wins, they should be obliged to pay. It is not complicated if we look at that simple logic, but sometimes there are casinos that try to scam and use their TOS against the gambler.

That already puts us at more disadvantage, so we really should choose casinos wisely, that is the only answer.

[knuckey]

Self-exclusion is a way to completely stop gambling. If you feel truly confident in this decision, there's no turning back. If you violate self-exclusion and the casino finds out, your account may be frozen, and your assets, including all your winnings, will be confiscated. Therefore, self-exclusion is a wise choice if you choose this.

[Sandra_hakeem]

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'm going to keep this real and simple. If the casinos received and confirmed a request for self-exclusion which is a formal agreement, but didn't implement the ban for some reason best known to them, they even allowed the bettor the chance to keep betting and probably gained a few thousands from that, but the table turned and he won himself a jackpot, he needs to be paid in full immediately without further dispensable excuses.

I will never understand why these casinos keep pretending to not worry too much about you when things are going south, but when you suddenly get a big win, they tend to forcefully take you through them hurdles--- Are they always trying to find an excuse to not pay a legit win?

[JiiBs]

I think that if the person still managed to win the jackpot even though he had requested to be self-excluded, the casino should have given him the money, because the problem here is why the casino didn't prevent the person from playing in the first place? If they are thinking of running away from their responsibilities by playing on the word that the person is self-excluded, that means that they are only causing problems for themselves, since the player has the right to take issue with it.

I did take another read on some of the self exclusion policies for some local bookie and one of the most popular casino on the forum and the policies are relative, they offer an indefinite policy in which, you would be restricted access from your account upon activation for a period, probably about 6 months and can only reactivate after that time. Upon activation of the self exclusion, every balance on your account would be frozen though, the gifts you received from promotions before and after that would expire within the given time frame for the promotions.
Hence, you really shouldn’t get the chance to play or even open a new account. In essence, you shouldn’t even get the chance to gamble in the first place or even win bets.