Would it be nice to see a body or agency for gambling self exclusion?

[Nrcewker]

Gambling is a personal choice; therefore, self-exclusion should also depend on an individual’s personal decision. The reason the concept of forming a “body” would fail is that such a body would have access to information about a person’s bankroll and gambling habits, which could violate the user’s privacy. As a result, people are unlikely to welcome third-party involvement between themselves and the casino.

Theoretically, as OP mentioned, this is possible on paper. However, I am confident that, in practice, assigning a body to self-exclude someone from gambling is not currently feasible.

[Strongkored]

Any institution created to reduce gambling or anything related to gambling addiction will fail unless players are willing to gamble responsibly.
Irresponsible players can always circumvent the limits and continue playing.
So, it's not about the rules, but about the gambler themselves.

[lovesmayfamilis]

OP, may I ask you this question: if money is literally pouring into your pocket, would you want to stop such a flow? Everyone will have the same answer: there is no such thing as a lot of money! So why should a casino care if someone is playing for big money, making big bets? It's their business's money. On the other hand, make sure that you do not forbid a person; if at some point he changes his mind about his self-exclusion, he will definitely find ways around it. Therefore, once again, by gambling you accept responsibility for the loss of your money. If you are not ready, do not play. No one forces people to play in casinos at gunpoint, and always remember how old you are when you are over 18, which means that you are an adult and should be able to take responsibility for your actions.

[Cointxz]

Any institution created to reduce gambling or anything related to gambling addiction will fail unless players are willing to gamble responsibly.
Irresponsible players can always circumvent the limits and continue playing.
So, it's not about the rules, but about the gambler themselves.

Exactly, Mainly because this institution will be funded by the government while the government benefit on the casino taxes so it’s ironic that they will lessen the casino profit while at the same time they benefit when casino generates profit the most.

It’s either they will ban completely gambling or so be it with the effects of gambling.

Giving back to the community such as putting part of casino profit to charity is what I think an effective way to somehow make something good out of those losses.

[nimogsm]

Your ideas and thoughts about this topic are all welcome.

In more developed countries, this is possible and already successfully implemented, but there's always a loophole: if a player wants to gamble, nothing can stop them. I would do this through a psychologist. If a person contacts me and says there's a problem, the specialist then forwards the data to the health care system, which then forwards it to authorities, such as law enforcement, who can request a block on their phone number and accounts to prevent them from registering and depositing on gaming platforms.

[danherbias07]

This will be a big agency, and who would fund it? I think that question should be the first one that we should think about.

It can be voluntary, but who will do it? Self-exclusion is some kind of a choice, and there have been news reports about gamblers who try to go back to gambling even after they self-excluded themselves. It means this agency will be responsible for taking care of those problems, and I don't think it will be that easy.

Sure, it's nice that something or someone will be there to watch over those applications for self-exclusion so that gambling sites will comply and will not email them with promotions or bonuses. Still, this is something that will probably work internationally because different gambling site offices are in different places.

[libert19]

Well, the thread is bit long for this sub's standards. As for idea, sounds good on paper but feel unnecessary but I understand the notion behind it — may be its easier for me to say this since gambling never really bothered me.  Also fwiw, I ain't fan of IP address ban, it's easiest thing to circumvent, so just don't bother if you are gonna do that.

[Natalim]

Gambling is a personal choice; therefore, self-exclusion should also depend on an individual’s personal decision. The reason the concept of forming a “body” would fail is that such a body would have access to information about a person’s bankroll and gambling habits, which could violate the user’s privacy. As a result, people are unlikely to welcome third-party involvement between themselves and the casino.

Theoretically, as OP mentioned, this is possible on paper. However, I am confident that, in practice, assigning a body to self-exclude someone from gambling is not currently feasible.

There is no body that should check our gambling habit, our transaction history, or anything that we believe should stay private.

By the name itself, it is called “self-exclusion” because that is our personal decision to stop gambling for a certain period of time, whether 1 month or 1 year, depending on how we see it needed. And this is not like responsible gaming where the casino has to make an action, this is the gambler’s decision, and casinos have nothing to do but comply with the request.

[sotelorene]

Op, if you are the owner of the Casino and you see yourself in that situation where you are making profit would you restrict the person that is making you make your profit and before I proceed again I would like to know if you actually started or open the Casino for business which core aim is to make profit or you started the business to Sympathize with people? The aim and motive of every business is to give service needed and in turn bring profit after all it has been stated that everyone should gamble responsibly.

[Accardo]

By the name itself, it is called “self-exclusion” because that is our personal decision to stop gambling for a certain period of time, whether 1 month or 1 year, depending on how we see it needed. And this is not like responsible gaming where the casino has to make an action, this is the gambler’s decision, and casinos have nothing to do but comply with the request.

The argument here is suffering from players who, unwillingly, go against their will to stop playing for a while. Self decision, it is, no doubt, but gaming like any other recuring activities is too hard to avoid for a long duration without trying to remake a session or two in a short period of self exclusion. For Gamblers to hit personal goals in gaming, they mostly require the help of an outside body, like a third party to help out in limiting the choices of going against their self decisions, which issue, brings forth the idea of inserting a global union with the core responsibility of helping players who are willing to cooperate.

[Natalim]

By the name itself, it is called “self-exclusion” because that is our personal decision to stop gambling for a certain period of time, whether 1 month or 1 year, depending on how we see it needed. And this is not like responsible gaming where the casino has to make an action, this is the gambler’s decision, and casinos have nothing to do but comply with the request.

The argument here is suffering from players who, unwillingly, go against their will to stop playing for a while. Self decision, it is, no doubt, but gaming like any other recuring activities is too hard to avoid for a long duration without trying to remake a session or two in a short period of self exclusion. For Gamblers to hit personal goals in gaming, they mostly require the help of an outside body, like a third party to help out in limiting the choices of going against their self decisions, which issue, brings forth the idea of inserting a global union with the core responsibility of helping players who are willing to cooperate.

Then that is no longer called self-exclusion because the very definition of it is that it is the gambler’s own initiative to activate it, and he chooses how long he will be self-excluded. If it is not the gambler who makes that decision, then that means the gambler really needs serious help because he is already too irresponsible and another agency has to step up. But I think the ones who can really see that are the casinos themselves because they are the ones monitoring the bets.

So there is no way another agency can do that job since there are thousands of casinos out there, how can they monitor that pattern? And for privacy reasons, there is no way casinos would give all the details they have just for the sake of regulation, there is no such thing like that I guess.

[sompitonov]

The argument here is suffering from players who, unwillingly, go against their will to stop playing for a while. Self decision, it is, no doubt, but gaming like any other recuring activities is too hard to avoid for a long duration without trying to remake a session or two in a short period of self exclusion. For Gamblers to hit personal goals in gaming, they mostly require the help of an outside body, like a third party to help out in limiting the choices of going against their self decisions, which issue, brings forth the idea of inserting a global union with the core responsibility of helping players who are willing to cooperate.

This would certainly benefit many players, but I think it's quite difficult at the moment to create such a global and well-functioning organization, a union of players, or anyone with authority. Furthermore, many gambling platforms wouldn't be too happy about this, as they have a vested interest in players playing more and not stopping. Some of them would certainly hinder this development, although I can't be completely sure of that. In any case, we as players need to think more about self-control, although not everyone will be able to do so.

[Achalugo BTC]

If I get you rightly, you are saying the self-exclusion option should not be made directly through casinos, but through a separate agency that will enforce the restriction across all casinos within its jurisdiction. Yes, I like that option. Some casinos are not making any deliberate effort to self-exclude their customers who are obviously gambling beyond their limits. Those customers bring them more money, so they will choose to go against the gambling rule than let the customer go.

Addiction is not a joke. Addicted gamblers need to follow strict measures to achieve their aim of recovery. An agency that is capable of restricting them from using all gambling platforms within its jurisdiction will do gamblers a lot of good. This time, there will no longer be cheating or secret gambling. Once you're done, you're done for good until your self-exclusion period is completed.

You are right, it will be very essential and beneficial to one's life, if they are being forced to leave any casino bet for good, they might see it as wickedness but when they will later realize the good you done for them, they will come back later thanking good, if not this way, it will be difficult to help someone who is really addicted to the game, as it will prevent and protect them from a lot of problems that would have ruined their lives.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

So here comes my own question if this organization is set up and running, who's gonna pay them since casinos dont like self exclusion? The gambler? Or the government.

If any organization like that will be set up, then I think the government are the ones that will cover the payment and they are even the ones that will think of setting up such organization in the first place because casino owners will not do that apart from the self exclusion that they have already set on their website which we know that it's not enough to stop anyone from gambling unless the person actually have self discipline.

[arwin100]

I was going through the gambling discussion board when I saw a topic "How long would you self-exclude after a bad loss?" which caught my attention. There have been lots of discussions with respect to self-exclusion and also complaints of players against casinos knowing that they have gambled above their limit, which should have prompted the casinos to restrict or exclude them from gambling due to them gambling way too high, which I see some sense in such conversation.

Here, I mentioned that self-exclusion is very important at some point or stage in one's gambling life because it helps to put one's gambling lifestyle under check and also try to limit the rate at which they gamble, but on the contrary, this can not be achieved. Why? because, as gamblers, sometimes emotions rule and sometimes players are mean, but with discipline it can be controlled, so I thought of it that in order for a gambler to successfully self-exclude, just as mentioned here, here and here in these discussions, it would be good to have such body so that any gambler who self excludes would not be able to access any casino be it online or offline till the expected day elapses.

Why these body? we know initiating self exclusion with one casino would definitely not affect the other casino so a player can easily activate another casino to play with after selfexcluding from a casino which means their self exclusion is just in vain so to make sure it is properly adhered to, there should be some form of organisation or an agency independently responsible for this act and working closely with casinos both online and offline to make sure they get data of players who self exclude to update their data where all casinos updates are domilciled so if incase any player self exclude, all the casinos would get a notification and quickly restrict that player on their platform till the self exclusion time elapses and this would be achieved by having the details of the player or through IP address so that any registration or access through that IP to any casino would be blocked. At least these measures would help players to achieve their self-exclusion and restriction goals for those who can not discipline themselves.

Your ideas and thoughts about this topic are all welcome.

I tried to look for some article about countries that strictly enforcing self exclusion and this is what I got online https://www.thegambledude.com/guides/self-exclusion

Maybe you will get an interest to read it, since somehow this is align with the topic you want to discuss here.

But this matter still really up to the gambler, since even if they self excluded by still coming back just like what we have seen to several people out here. For sure that there's nothing will happen on the self exclusions done if they still gamble on other casino.

[Bitcoin.com97]

Self exclusion is a personal decision of an addicted gamblers to heal and take a break for as long as their soul desirs ,but I feel it will be hard to get such agency to regulate individuals that is on self exclusion, although some countries are doing it and it's been helpful,but I don't think it can be easy to regulate over here , I'm even concern why one will self exclused himself from a casino because of how much he or she has lost and decided to go and start again from another casino ,that is not self exclusion but if there is agency to monitor and regulate it will be more good to control some person who are addicted gamblers.

[Accardo]

So there is no way another agency can do that job since there are thousands of casinos out there, how can they monitor that pattern? And for privacy reasons, there is no way casinos would give all the details they have just for the sake of regulation, there is no such thing like that I guess.

Gameblock is an online platform that is close to achieving this goal for self exclusive players by restricting the player's device from accessing thousands of online casinos across the globe, they make it almost impossible for the gambler to uninstall the app from their device. The only way to bypass this is by getting another device, which is still a loophole that isn't yet resolved.

This would certainly benefit many players, but I think it's quite difficult at the moment to create such a global and well-functioning organization, a union of players, or anyone with authority. Furthermore, many gambling platforms wouldn't be too happy about this, as they have a vested interest in players playing more and not stopping.

The players wants it for their own good, but struggle to make it happen, this is common with human habits and temptations. Because today is Sunday, I'd add a corresponding scripture by Apostle Paul on this matter, In Romans 7:15-17 he wrote "For what I want to do, I do not, but what I hate I do" There exist famous hymns about this particulate quote, as it's a relatable human problem. Too many gamblers can't help it, but wish to do something about it, this is not just a one man show, that is why apps are coming up to help, and given time, they'll be a proper software that'll tackle this dispute for self gamblers who boycott their own rules.

[Orpichukwu]

Gambling is a personal choice; therefore, self-exclusion should also depend on an individual’s personal decision. The reason the concept of forming a “body” would fail is that such a body would have access to information about a person’s bankroll and gambling habits, which could violate the user’s privacy. As a result, people are unlikely to welcome third-party involvement between themselves and the casino.

Theoretically, as OP mentioned, this is possible on paper. However, I am confident that, in practice, assigning a body to self-exclude someone from gambling is not currently feasible.

A situation where I think such a body can work perfectly is in a case where the addicted gamblers are the only ones who already apply for self-exclusion in one casino, and the casino will be the one to report it to the appropriate authorities, who will now make sure it takes effect in other casinos under the same jurisdiction, and that's where gambling protection rights can also be effective, as it won't require the agencies to go through the players' personal data; they will work with information from the player and the casino they play in.

[rdluffy]

In Brazil, there's a government website where you can request the exclusion of all betting sites at once
I think that's exactly what you're talking about

Obviously, it only affects sites legalized here that identify the user by their CPF, which is the personal identification document here in Brazil
If the user wanst to break the exclusion, he can uses a VPN to access another casino outside Brazil's jurisdiction

But in general, it works. The last time I saw a news report, they estimated that 700,000 people had already used this tool  

[hedgeh0g]

In Brazil, there's a government website where you can request the exclusion of all betting sites at once
I think that's exactly what you're talking about

Obviously, it only affects sites legalized here that identify the user by their CPF, which is the personal identification document here in Brazil
If the user wanst to break the exclusion, he can uses a VPN to access another casino outside Brazil's jurisdiction

But in general, it works. The last time I saw a news report, they estimated that 700,000 people had already used this tool  

Wow, I didn't know any country in the world had something like this. This makes me happy, because I'm sure many other countries could adopt a similar system for player self-regulation. 700,000 players—that's mind-blowing. I didn't expect so many players to play in Bralizia. In any case, this is an example for other countries that should do this immediately, because it could save many players who can't stop playing without self-regulation from poverty. It also gives young players something to think about when they know there's a site with so many players. After all, they didn't just do it for nothing; behind every number in those 700,000 is a personal, sad story of losses.