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

[henmark]

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.

If I am losing money, and a casino tells me that they are cutting me off, I would actually thank that place. Because after all, a casino exists for one reason which is making a profit, and they could have just let me ruin my life and they would get richer, and yet they are not and they are stopping me which means they are a great business.

Do you see McDonald's rejecting to serve fat people? Do you see any cigarette companies rejecting to sell it to cancer patients? Do you see any business really, stop selling their items to their customers for any reason? They would be glad to take your money, so if a casino can get richer if they keep me playing and yet they still think of me and make me stop then they are a great business.

[Judith87403]

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.

That is why its about the gambler, if they are determined to stop gambling, there is no time they will be forced to do so, beside gambling its not a do or die game, where they must gamble. So they can decide to do whatever thing they please or want, as far it won't affect them in anyway, that way shows how wise and responsible they are towards gambling. Everyday should not be a bad day for them and also, handling gambling this way, will make it more enjoyable and fun to gamble with.

[Perfectbaby]

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.

That is why its about the gambler, if they are determined to stop gambling, there is no time they will be forced to do so, beside gambling its not a do or die game, where they must gamble. So they can decide to do whatever thing they please or want, as far it won't affect them in anyway, that way shows how wise and responsible they are towards gambling. Everyday should not be a bad day for them and also, handling gambling this way, will make it more enjoyable and fun to gamble with.

Most times it feels like gambler itself are the people who are pushing themselves into gambling addiction because they didn't have a timetable or a bottom line which if they had reach that moment you wouldn't see them gambling again.
Let say if someone have to be gambling maybe 3 to 4 times in a day they should be that sticking that such plans, and risk management is actually what most people are suffering from because they could fund around  1k and this amount they do not have a proper plan for it, and not all trade the said trader should be jumping into it.

[Slow death]

I believe it would be very good if the government had a way to blacklist people prohibited from gambling in all casinos. This blacklist would include people with proven addiction, confirmed by a doctor, and recommended to the government that they be placed on the blacklist, preventing them from creating accounts in all casinos. This way, when a person tried KYC (Know Your Customer) at a casino, they would be rejected and unable to gamble again.

It would be the only way to protect addicted people from gambling again. Now, regarding self-exclusion, I honestly think there shouldn't be a way to be banned from all casinos. Because people can change their minds and want to gamble again. However, if a person were proven by a doctor to be addicted and shouldn't gamble again, then in that case I agree with being blacklisted and banned from all casinos.

[Odusko]

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.

That is why its about the gambler, if they are determined to stop gambling, there is no time they will be forced to do so, beside gambling its not a do or die game, where they must gamble. So they can decide to do whatever thing they please or want, as far it won't affect them in anyway, that way shows how wise and responsible they are towards gambling. Everyday should not be a bad day for them and also, handling gambling this way, will make it more enjoyable and fun to gamble with.

Most times it feels like gambler itself are the people who are pushing themselves into gambling addiction because they didn't have a timetable or a bottom line which if they had reach that moment you wouldn't see them gambling again.
Let say if someone have to be gambling maybe 3 to 4 times in a day they should be that sticking that such plans, and risk management is actually what most people are suffering from because they could fund around  1k and this amount they do not have a proper plan for it, and not all trade the said trader should be jumping into it.

Exactly my view also innthis case, gamblers are meant to take responsibility of their actions while gambling, and casino shouldn't be bordered with anything that concerned the gamblers manna of gambling and what it does to they finances this is because, casino should and are more focused onntheir own revenue generation and how to keep the traffic up on the casino since they are running a business that requires gamblers loses for them to make profits.

[junder]

Exactly my view also innthis case, gamblers are meant to take responsibility of their actions while gambling, and casino shouldn't be bordered with anything that concerned the gamblers manna of gambling and what it does to they finances this is because, casino should and are more focused onntheir own revenue generation and how to keep the traffic up on the casino since they are running a business that requires gamblers loses for them to make profits.

The profits or losses experienced by the players themselves should not affect the casino itself, even players who experience the destruction of their lives because of their gambling, it is not because of the casino but because of the players themselves who cannot be responsible for their own behavior when gambling. Apart from that, as you said casinos should focus more on increasing their revenue than taking care of the fate of their players.

[TedMosby]

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.

In a regulated casino, responsible gaming [1] is a must. Responsible gaming (gambling) doesn't mean gamblers are the only ones that should be responsible for their gambling activity, but also the casino itself. Gambling should be a form of entertainment, a leisure activity, not a way to make money. Gambling should not cause harm to people involved in it, especially leading to personal problems like addiction. IMO, it counts as a crime when you make money from people's bad addiction. Just like drugs. Makes sense?

Responsible gaming refers to the practice of gambling in a way that minimizes the potential negative effects that gambling can have on individuals and society. This includes recognizing and managing the risks associated with gambling, as well as promoting safe and healthy gambling practices.

Responsible gaming programs themselves have become a regular part of the U.S. gaming industry's daily operations [2]. I personally support this program and I think other countries should have this program too. But it would be difficult for citizens who live in countries where gambling is restricted.

For me, the idea of the OP is good. But I just don't know how it will be executed, especially how to properly monitor those people who are addicted to gambling.

Source:
[1] https://www.acgcs.org/articles/responsible-gaming-what-it-is-and-what-casinos-need-to-do
[2] https://www.americangaming.org/resources/responsible-gaming-regulations-and-statutes-guide

[davis196]

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.

Such idea has been discussed more than once in the past, but I have doubts that it would work. Such agency or organization must have truly global coverage and it must include all licensed casinos around the world. How do you think this would happen? There are various jurisdictions and each jurisdiction has its own rules and regulations around gambling. And how about all those unlicensed non-KYC casinos, that would refuse to join such "self-exclusion" gambling organization? The only way for the gamblers to fight their addiction is to focus on themselves and try to find professional help outside the online world. Self-exclusion can help a little bit, but it can be easily bypassed and there's no way for us to create a massive global self-exclusion system.

[imthegreat]

Your ideas and thoughts about this topic are all welcome.

Your idea is absolutely correct, but anything is only done when it benefits everyone. Yes, self-exclusion from gambling is the right decision for any gambler, but it's not profitable for online casinos and bookmakers. And the fact is, if someone were to organize an organization that would accept self-exclusion requests for absolutely all gambling, who would sponsor it? Casinos would refuse because they wouldn't want to spend money on such an initiative, since it wouldn't be profitable for them.

[bubilas]

Your idea is absolutely correct, but anything is only done when it benefits everyone. Yes, self-exclusion from gambling is the right decision for any gambler, but it's not profitable for online casinos and bookmakers. And the fact is, if someone were to organize an organization that would accept self-exclusion requests for absolutely all gambling, who would sponsor it? Casinos would refuse because they wouldn't want to spend money on such an initiative, since it wouldn't be profitable for them.

Yes, a lot is happening in the world because large companies want to profit from their investments, but what benefit do they gain if they start throwing a spanner in the works by enforcing self-exclusion for bettors and gamblers? They won't be proactive in this matter. I'll go further: unscrupulous casinos try to exploit these self-exclusion procedures to prolong the consideration of self-exclusion requests while the player is still playing. And when the player wins, they immediately approve the self-exclusion request to avoid giving the winnings back. "You self-excluded yourself from the games, so the winnings are invalid."

[giammangiato]

It would be nice to have one but there would be a general database and your KYC must be taken to identify which player is on self exclusion and maybe people wouldn't be willing to give away their KYC freely for such checkmating, so it might not work on a general note. However I believe certain countries already has that in place, the best way to enforce it is per country because you cannot just have that central body for every online casino, especially for offshore casinos who campaigns for NO KYC

In fact, the main problem for which, in my opinion, little would work is this, a database that would require significant security because it collects data from many people.
The idea of an entity protecting an individual from gambling by banning access is not bad, but how could the problem of data collection be circumvented? Why do I have to be vulnerable as a subject to this too?
An addicted player is already vulnerable because of his problems, going to make the situation even more delicate only complicates the situation, I don't know on a practical level what this thing could be like.

[bakasabo]

It would be very good if there would be someone or many organizations that will be willing to help gambling addicted people. Gamblers should not rely only on self-exclusion option in casino. I believe there are not so many organizations or agencies that help gambling addicted. Government dont usually support such authorities. As a private business they are also not the best option so people dont invest in them. Casinos sponsor such thing, but I think they do it just for show. So I agree that it would nice if there would someone extra that will help addicted or those who require mental help.

[rojan]

Exactly my view also innthis case, gamblers are meant to take responsibility of their actions while gambling, and casino shouldn't be bordered with anything that concerned the gamblers manna of gambling and what it does to they finances this is because, casino should and are more focused onntheir own revenue generation and how to keep the traffic up on the casino since they are running a business that requires gamblers loses for them to make profits.

The profits or losses experienced by the players themselves should not affect the casino itself, even players who experience the destruction of their lives because of their gambling, it is not because of the casino but because of the players themselves who cannot be responsible for their own behavior when gambling. Apart from that, as you said casinos should focus more on increasing their revenue than taking care of the fate of their players.

While I believe gamblers need to be held responsible for their choices, I believe casinos should not only be concerned with the money and not have any concerns with problem gambling. Gambling addiction is an actual problem that can influence a person to make irrational choices. That is why it is good to have a centralized self-exclusion agency. It would enable weak players to remove theirselves from various gambling websites simultaneously and make it tougher for them to maintain destructive conduct. This would not do away with individual accountability, but it would offer an extra degree of security. The right balance of player responsibility and personal accountability is good for players and the industry.

[Fiatless]

Your idea is absolutely correct, but anything is only done when it benefits everyone. Yes, self-exclusion from gambling is the right decision for any gambler, but it's not profitable for online casinos and bookmakers. And the fact is, if someone were to organize an organization that would accept self-exclusion requests for absolutely all gambling, who would sponsor it? Casinos would refuse because they wouldn't want to spend money on such an initiative, since it wouldn't be profitable for them.

It's not a bad idea to have a central system that would enforce self-exclusion in all casinos. This will help reduce addiction since gamblers wouldn't have access to all gambling platforms in the jurisdiction. But we also have unregistered casinos that can be accessed by gamblers. The use of VPN to bypass these restrictions is also popular. The truth is that the responsibility to be free from addiction depends more on the individual than any external body.

[Chinesebaby]

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.

But how will a casino know when a gambler has gambled above his or her limit? Or was any limit submitted to the casino before? Because to be honestly speaking, the only time I think a casino will know you have gambled above your limits is when you exhaust all the money you have on your casino account balance and can no longer place a bet. Because apart from that, the casino is a free environment that allows gamblers to do whatever they want. Because this same people who are complaining about casinos refusal to stop them after gambling a certain period of time, are the time people who will come out tomorrow again to complain that the casino is restricting them when the casino starts implementing these policies. So it is obvious that humans needs will never be satisfied. And as such, it should be the responsibility of each gambler to know when to stop and take a break while gambling.

[eisen33]

Your idea is absolutely correct, but anything is only done when it benefits everyone. Yes, self-exclusion from gambling is the right decision for any gambler, but it's not profitable for online casinos and bookmakers. And the fact is, if someone were to organize an organization that would accept self-exclusion requests for absolutely all gambling, who would sponsor it? Casinos would refuse because they wouldn't want to spend money on such an initiative, since it wouldn't be profitable for them.

It's not a bad idea to have a central system that would enforce self-exclusion in all casinos. This will help reduce addiction since gamblers wouldn't have access to all gambling platforms in the jurisdiction. But we also have unregistered casinos that can be accessed by gamblers. The use of VPN to bypass these restrictions is also popular. The truth is that the responsibility to be free from addiction depends more on the individual than any external body.

I don't think that would work, because there are casinos that don't require KYC, and players would simply continue gambling there. Also, remember the recent case where a woman in one of the states won a jackpot, but the casino didn't want to pay her because it turned out she had requested self-exclusion several years earlier. So as we can see, that didn't stop her from continuing to gamble. That's why I think none of these measures will truly work until the player personally decides to stop.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Your ideas and thoughts about this topic are all welcome.

It's not a bad idea, but it's a pipe dream.

Isn't there already agencies like this? Depending on the country that you are in. I know that in the UK, there are responsible gaming tools that block access to gambling sites.

Yes, something similar already exists at the national level in some countries, as it has been pointed out, where if you self-exclude, you won’t be able to access any casino—whether brick-and-mortar or online—that’s licensed there. And that’s the point: you’re not going to get every country in the world to agree to do something like that.

In the end, no amount of self-exclusion in the world can protect you from yourself, and if you have a problem with self-control, that's what you need to work on.

[Rabata]

If all casinos come under such a bonding, then it is possible. Whenever someone wants self-exclusion, if it reaches all casino platforms within a moment and automatically restricts that user, then it can play an effective role. But casino platforms will not take any such decision. Adding this additional feature may reduce their income, due to which they will not take any such step. Another important point is that in gambling, there is generally no logic in giving one's control to others. If a gambler needs self-exclusion, then he has to control that matter. Gamblers need to exercise self-control when gambling, otherwise they will never be able to survive gambling for long.

[GiftedMAN]

If all casinos come under such a bonding, then it is possible. Whenever someone wants self-exclusion, if it reaches all casino platforms within a moment and automatically restricts that user, then it can play an effective role. But casino platforms will not take any such decision. Adding this additional feature may reduce their income, due to which they will not take any such step. Another important point is that in gambling, there is generally no logic in giving one's control to others. If a gambler needs self-exclusion, then he has to control that matter. Gamblers need to exercise self-control when gambling, otherwise they will never be able to survive gambling for long.

Gambling is one of the engagements with the most daily capital flows in the world, that's why you see gambling companies all over the globe where it's legal for people to gamble. You don't expect a casino company that wants to make as much money as possible to include self-exclusion option for their customers. And if for any reason the authorities decides to force such policy, it'll be difficult to implement since they'll need the database of these companies to ascertain the gambling activities of customers. If such agency should exist in any country, it'll only work when affected gamblers report for self-exclusion and in most cases, it's very rare to see a gambler who wants to be excluded from gambling even when they're losing money

[Yeesha]

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.

If I am losing money, and a casino tells me that they are cutting me off, I would actually thank that place. Because after all, a casino exists for one reason which is making a profit, and they could have just let me ruin my life and they would get richer, and yet they are not and they are stopping me which means they are a great business.

Do you see McDonald's rejecting to serve fat people? Do you see any cigarette companies rejecting to sell it to cancer patients? Do you see any business really, stop selling their items to their customers for any reason? They would be glad to take your money, so if a casino can get richer if they keep me playing and yet they still think of me and make me stop then they are a great business.

I don't know if there is any casino that restricted a gambler because they are addicted to gambling or loosing so much money. Beside it maybe possible for some casino to apply such rules, but even if you are addicted to gambling and you lose a lot it's their gain because they will make profit as a result of your loss. So what makes you thinks that they will choose to cut off their profits for another individual's benefits, but out of caution self exclusion is permitted in every casino just to ensure that the individual maintains their stability and also to have full control over themselves. Every casino operates with strict rules and ensure both the casino and customers abide by those rules to prevent excessive loss or any complications.