Is player protection fair to casinos or too much responsibility?

[Son Of Blockchain (SOB)]

I believe that it's part of the responsibility that they accepted during the time of regulation. But the fact is that, most casinos don't abide to the law and they allow gamblers to gamble recklessly because they want to make more money.

I believe that majority of gamblers don't know that they can sue a casino for this reason if not, some would have done it. Sometimes, the body in charge of monitoring the casinos that they abide to the strict regulations are only after their pockets. If the casino gives them fat envelopes, everything is going smoothly.

While some casinos care about the affairs of their customers or forced to do so cause the regulations that warrant them to  there would definitely be those who don't care about having more edge and helping addicted people from losing more funds, they'll even come up with ways of luring them to increase their bankroll and probably lose more to them.
 Honestly, I never knew about it until now, I used to feel I'm responsible for my own gambling actions and shouldn't blame a casino if I fail to gamble within my limits or take actions that could make me lose more funds to them, sometimes the cost filing for a law suit could be the reason why gamblers who're aware of it don't sue casinos.

[Fiasem20]

I believe that it's part of the responsibility that they accepted during the time of regulation. But the fact is that, most casinos don't abide to the law and they allow gamblers to gamble recklessly because they want to make more money.

I believe that majority of gamblers don't know that they can sue a casino for this reason if not, some would have done it. Sometimes, the body in charge of monitoring the casinos that they abide to the strict regulations are only after their pockets. If the casino gives them fat envelopes, everything is going smoothly.

While some casinos care about the affairs of their customers or forced to do so cause the regulations that warrant them to  there would definitely be those who don't care about having more edge and helping addicted people from losing more funds, they'll even come up with ways of luring them to increase their bankroll and probably lose more to them.
 Honestly, I never knew about it until now, I used to feel I'm responsible for my own gambling actions and shouldn't blame a casino if I fail to gamble within my limits or take actions that could make me lose more funds to them, sometimes the cost filing for a law suit could be the reason why gamblers who're aware of it don't sue casinos.

A licensed casino would always encourage responsible gambling right?thesame way they encourage on “gambling responsibly”that should also be applicable on the aspect of limiting a gambler who has stayed too long in the casino.But how would an individual spend good eight hours on a casino,don’t they have any other activity aside gambling for the day?honestly I am curious,we all know gambling can be fun but that duration doesn’t suit the definition of having fun in the casino.For sure the casino can be sued but even if they get sued they may likely win the case because the decision didn’t come from a baby rather an adult,so they might likely win the case.Responsible gambling begins within you and not necessarily the casino.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Casinos have no responsibility towards the player, because casinos have no power to force them to play, much less tell them how much they have to spend. It is assumed that everyone who enters a casino should know that it is adult entertainment and if you are an adult you should have total control over what you do. You cannot make the irresponsibility of some players become the responsibility of the casino. The casino should only guarantee the transparency of the game and the payouts.

[Hispo]

Casinos have no responsibility towards the player, because casinos have no power to force them to play, much less tell them how much they have to spend. It is assumed that everyone who enters a casino should know that it is adult entertainment and if you are an adult you should have total control over what you do. You cannot make the irresponsibility of some players become the responsibility of the casino. The casino should only guarantee the transparency of the game and the payouts.

That is actually how it works in many jurisdictions, specially in western democracies in which there is much emphasis on the personal freedom of people to do whatever they want with their money.
But we also need to understand the context of some countries and jurisdictions which have chosen to enforce responsibilities on casinos when comes to the management of gambling addiction.
It is something which has become a thing in countries where gambling addiction has become a problem through all their society and since the government does not have any legal standing or tools to ban gambling and betting, they decide to add responsibilities to the casino itself.

It is not the best way to take the problem of addiction, but in their eyes, it is a solution which is cheaper than actually educate the population and open rehabilitation centers nationwide.

[Wakate]

Casinos have no responsibility towards the player, because casinos have no power to force them to play, much less tell them how much they have to spend. It is assumed that everyone who enters a casino should know that it is adult entertainment and if you are an adult you should have total control over what you do. You cannot make the irresponsibility of some players become the responsibility of the casino. The casino should only guarantee the transparency of the game and the payouts.

Even if you think that casino has no responsibility to control how players are gambling, it is the duty if the casino to prevent them from gambling for too long which is part of there obligations they need to enforce to prevent gamblers from becoming addictive to gambling. If casinos are not taking their obligations seriously, the government can come in and prosecute them.

[kawetsriyanto]

Even if you think that casino has no responsibility to control how players are gambling, it is the duty if the casino to prevent them from gambling for too long which is part of there obligations they need to enforce to prevent gamblers from becoming addictive to gambling.

Agree. It is also the responsibility of casinos to minimize the case of addictions. If they care with their users, they must also make a the preventive way for addiction. Sure, this won't guarantee to avoid addiction, but it is probably to lessen the number of addiction cases. In TOS, the casinos can state the limitation for playing gambling games. There will be the maximum time for playing in a day. So, there will be no players to spend time for eight hours in a day.

If casinos are not taking their obligations seriously, the government can come in and prosecute them.

Since the government has made the policy, they can shut down the casinos if the casinos won't obey the regulation.

[Sonia_123]

Players protection is fair and responsibility of a casino, if casinos cannot secure the safety of their customers then it will be very difficult to be profitable since no gambler will want to risk their lives and safety after their wins or otherwise .

Security is part of a casinos welfare to is customer and should not be overlooked at any point in time.

[BRINIRHA]

Seeing this indirectly those in land-based casinos have much more complicated regulations that must be obeyed because when they violate even a little this can have an impact on their integrity.

This can be an example of the problem of responsibility not only from the casino but from the gamblers themselves but it seems that this condition will not really apply to online sites because even if it exists maybe this can be minimized so that things like this never happen.  What I don't understand in this situation is if the gambler is not forced to bet can this still be considered a violation of the casino's responsibility? I don't really understand this kind of protection because in my country casinos don't exist, at least that's what I know because even though they may exist underground, they don't necessarily explicitly surface due to regulatory issues.

[LUCKMCFLY]

That is actually how it works in many jurisdictions, specially in western democracies in which there is much emphasis on the personal freedom of people to do whatever they want with their money.
But we also need to understand the context of some countries and jurisdictions which have chosen to enforce responsibilities on casinos when comes to the management of gambling addiction.
It is something which has become a thing in countries where gambling addiction has become a problem through all their society and since the government does not have any legal standing or tools to ban gambling and betting, they decide to add responsibilities to the casino itself.

It is not the best way to take the problem of addiction, but in their eyes, it is a solution which is cheaper than actually educate the population and open rehabilitation centers nationwide.

Yes, in some way it's always good to maintain appearances, and they must submit to certain things like running campaigns to improve addiction problems or combat addiction with personal responsibility. Most casinos have programs like that; the social aspect is something that must be fulfilled, it's like a requirement, but it's not done as an obligation but as a way to contribute to this problem.

[Hispo]

That is actually how it works in many jurisdictions, specially in western democracies in which there is much emphasis on the personal freedom of people to do whatever they want with their money.
But we also need to understand the context of some countries and jurisdictions which have chosen to enforce responsibilities on casinos when comes to the management of gambling addiction.
It is something which has become a thing in countries where gambling addiction has become a problem through all their society and since the government does not have any legal standing or tools to ban gambling and betting, they decide to add responsibilities to the casino itself.

It is not the best way to take the problem of addiction, but in their eyes, it is a solution which is cheaper than actually educate the population and open rehabilitation centers nationwide.

Yes, in some way it's always good to maintain appearances, and they must submit to certain things like running campaigns to improve addiction problems or combat addiction with personal responsibility. Most casinos have programs like that; the social aspect is something that must be fulfilled, it's like a requirement, but it's not done as an obligation but as a way to contribute to this problem.

It is not rather maintaining appearances, if they actually wanted to tackle the problem of gambling addiction in their countries, then they would not ask for casinos within their countries and jurisdictions to have responsibilities over the choices of their gamblers, the government would use the money they get from taxes and gross income to open rehabilitation centers and also educate the youth in the country about dangers of gambling addiction and how it can easily destroy ones finances in a very short period of time.

Again, making casinos liable for the behavior of gamblers on their platforms is rather the lazy approach to a problem with requires more attention and actual investments.

Businesses are never supposed to be get accountable for what their adult costumers decide to do with their money.
It would be the equivalent of asking tobacco companies to keep an eye on the cigarette comsuption of smokers, it does not make sense.

[Accardo]

It is something which has become a thing in countries where gambling addiction has become a problem through all their society and since the government does not have any legal standing or tools to ban gambling and betting, they decide to add responsibilities to the casino itself.

It is not the best way to take the problem of addiction, but in their eyes, it is a solution which is cheaper than actually educate the population and open rehabilitation centers nationwide.

Did the government also lay down a deal on tax cut for casinos they shifted responsibility on? The casino run as a business, though players should be cared after, but the government deserve a fair share of working on this responsibility by setting up the educational structure around gambling problem. The player protection isn't a change on the player's mental instability, which is what everyone asks for including the family of affected gamblers.

[impulse709]

It is something which has become a thing in countries where gambling addiction has become a problem through all their society and since the government does not have any legal standing or tools to ban gambling and betting, they decide to add responsibilities to the casino itself.

It is not the best way to take the problem of addiction, but in their eyes, it is a solution which is cheaper than actually educate the population and open rehabilitation centers nationwide.

Did the government also lay down a deal on tax cut for casinos they shifted responsibility on? The casino run as a business, though players should be cared after, but the government deserve a fair share of working on this responsibility by setting up the educational structure around gambling problem. The player protection isn't a change on the player's mental instability, which is what everyone asks for including the family of affected gamblers.

I agree that player protection has nothing to do with the entire responsibility of the casinos. While these are tools that can help you and your loved ones manage your gambling experience, gambling operators cannot prevent gambling addiction. Governments also play an important role via public education and awareness campaigns and accessible rehabilitation programmes. It is best to have a balanced approach, with casinos encouraging safer gambling, and governments funding prevention and treatment. It's not fair and it's not going to generate the greatest effectiveness to expect one side to solve the entire issue.

[Hispo]

It is something which has become a thing in countries where gambling addiction has become a problem through all their society and since the government does not have any legal standing or tools to ban gambling and betting, they decide to add responsibilities to the casino itself.

It is not the best way to take the problem of addiction, but in their eyes, it is a solution which is cheaper than actually educate the population and open rehabilitation centers nationwide.

Did the government also lay down a deal on tax cut for casinos they shifted responsibility on? The casino run as a business, though players should be cared after, but the government deserve a fair share of working on this responsibility by setting up the educational structure around gambling problem. The player protection isn't a change on the player's mental instability, which is what everyone asks for including the family of affected gamblers.

I have no idea of casinos were offered some deal when comes to taxation on their renevue from their gambling services, but it would make sense since monitoring and having some responsibility on the activities of their gamblers is something which obviously costs money. I can only talk from the perspective of a person who lives in South America, and here there is no actual liability on casinos when comes to the money management of gamblers.

Obviously gambler protection won't change anything within the mind of the gambler by itself, but it is the easiest way for the government to switch responsibility and force private gambling companies to take care of a problem which actually is supposed to be taken care by public administration. It is a problem of either lack of money or lack of political willpower.

[jeremypwr]

I do think the casinos do have a moral obligation when it comes to player protection.
Most if not all of the legitimate ones do vouch for responsible gambling and offer self-inclusion options.

[rojan]

I believe that it's part of the responsibility that they accepted during the time of regulation. But the fact is that, most casinos don't abide to the law and they allow gamblers to gamble recklessly because they want to make more money.

I believe that majority of gamblers don't know that they can sue a casino for this reason if not, some would have done it. Sometimes, the body in charge of monitoring the casinos that they abide to the strict regulations are only after their pockets. If the casino gives them fat envelopes, everything is going smoothly.

While some casinos care about the affairs of their customers or forced to do so cause the regulations that warrant them to  there would definitely be those who don't care about having more edge and helping addicted people from losing more funds, they'll even come up with ways of luring them to increase their bankroll and probably lose more to them.
 Honestly, I never knew about it until now, I used to feel I'm responsible for my own gambling actions and shouldn't blame a casino if I fail to gamble within my limits or take actions that could make me lose more funds to them, sometimes the cost filing for a law suit could be the reason why gamblers who're aware of it don't sue casinos.

A licensed casino would always encourage responsible gambling right?thesame way they encourage on “gambling responsibly”that should also be applicable on the aspect of limiting a gambler who has stayed too long in the casino.But how would an individual spend good eight hours on a casino,don’t they have any other activity aside gambling for the day?honestly I am curious,we all know gambling can be fun but that duration doesn’t suit the definition of having fun in the casino.For sure the casino can be sued but even if they get sued they may likely win the case because the decision didn’t come from a baby rather an adult,so they might likely win the case.Responsible gambling begins within you and not necessarily the casino.

I do believe that responsible gambling should start with the player as each adult has a responsibility to control his or her time and money. Of course, casinos can offer resources like deposit limits, self-exclusion and session reminders, but they are not responsible for keeping people from gambling if they make the decision to do so. Meanwhile, licensed casinos should keep an eye out for any growing signs of negative gambling practices and uphold the laws that are intended to safeguard gamblers. If they are totally neglecting those duties, they deserve to be criticized. To me, the best way to do this is by having the responsibility shared so that the casinos offer protection and the players are responsible for using it wisely and responsibly to take control of their gambling.

[Accardo]

I agree that player protection has nothing to do with the entire responsibility of the casinos. While these are tools that can help you and your loved ones manage your gambling experience, gambling operators cannot prevent gambling addiction. Governments also play an important role via public education and awareness campaigns and accessible rehabilitation programmes. It is best to have a balanced approach, with casinos encouraging safer gambling, and governments funding prevention and treatment. It's not fair and it's not going to generate the greatest effectiveness to expect one side to solve the entire issue.

With the government nothing will ever work on a leveled play ground, the house takes serious every action issued to them by the government to avoid sanctions, but the government refuse to hear the requests of the entire public regarding taking the right decisions towards reducing problem gambling. In a proper working system the house can handle all of this including building educational structures and rehabilitation centers in strategic places of affected nations, not with their money, but on a straight deal with the government, take Australia for Instance, they make about $7 billion annually from taxing casinos, isn't it enough money? even half of it invested on this project annually will bring down the high rate of problem gambling in her nation.

[JeffBrad12]

People have responsibility overthemselves. They were gambling in the casino, so they were agree with the consequence when they're gambling. So it's not fair to always blame casino to have responsibility over their addiction.
The addiction is coming from themselves, not the casino. If they can gamble responsibly, i don't think they will go bankrupt. In fact, they can play it anytime, and they can also leave from there anytime.

[junder]

Gambling sites is set up for business and for that reason, casino operators will definitely pay close attention to their revenue generation which is aiming at generating traffic to the casino, so if a gambler spend hours on that casino the only thing important to the casino is to make sure that the gambler have enough balance to cover for his expenses on the casino, aside that the number of hour's the gambler spend have nothing to do with casino unless until the player sign up for the self exclusion.

I agree with what you said, even though there are gamblers who spend a long time gambling even with money deposited again and again it seems that the casino will not pay attention to this because as you said they built a business to make a profit and this profit is obtained from players who do play especially with players who play for a long time it is more profit for themselves. The only prevention that can be done is from yourself not with the casino.

[jcojci]

I do believe that responsible gambling should start with the player as each adult has a responsibility to control his or her time and money. Of course, casinos can offer resources like deposit limits, self-exclusion and session reminders, but they are not responsible for keeping people from gambling if they make the decision to do so. Meanwhile, licensed casinos should keep an eye out for any growing signs of negative gambling practices and uphold the laws that are intended to safeguard gamblers. If they are totally neglecting those duties, they deserve to be criticized. To me, the best way to do this is by having the responsibility shared so that the casinos offer protection and the players are responsible for using it wisely and responsibly to take control of their gambling.

Without responsible gambling, they will falls in gambling without seeing a way out. They could play longer than others and spends much without think how much money left. That is not responsible gambling but only makes them deeper in gambling and lastly, they will become addicted to gambling.

Casino should warns those who gambling longer than others and asking them to stop. But casino might not seriously do this and if they ask people to breaks and that is many, their income might decrease. Casino will just follow the rules from the regulator to stay away from the problems.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Businesses are never supposed to be get accountable for what their adult costumers decide to do with their money.
It would be the equivalent of asking tobacco companies to keep an eye on the cigarette comsuption of smokers, it does not make sense.

There's the answer, that's it, and it can be translated as a business. It will always be a business that kills people. Anyone who lacks sufficient awareness falls into that abyss, and that's where it all ends. This is something that not even governments can address because governments aren't interested in doing things right. They profit too; they maintain corruption. Anyone who tells me that a government is truly interested in its people is lying. It's not like that. So everything boils down to pure business interests.