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

[Orpichukwu]

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.

The main problem will actually be those unregulated casinos and not VPNs since they will not have to comply with whatever setup that could help cube addicted gamblers. In fact, they will be willing to provide service to them when the regulated ones are following the laws.

And VPN won't help much if the players are still trying to access the regulated ones, as their identification will still be needed, and means of deposit for those local casinos can be traced back to the real identity.

[Sandra_hakeem]

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.

In a time and era where the greater number of youths are active gamblers, if this type of rule is made, most casinos will be responsible for bypassing several gamblers to play regardless. Infact, it will be a way to generate more traffic for those who'd respect and stay strict with the rules.

Everybody wants to make money off any type of restrictions so, whatever way they can please those customers from other sites, they will to keep them permanently. I don't even know what to think of; even if the licensing authorities agree, since it's not under one organization, the bypassing will still be a problem.

[Myleschetty]

Your ideas and thoughts about this topic are all welcome.

In theory, we shouldn't expect it to occur in the online gambling industry, and as of the last time I checked, not all online casinos use the self-exclude gambling service. Your viewpoint is legitimate, but who will establish such an organization and pay the employees? It all comes down to gamblers taking care of themselves, realizing the negative effects of gambling addiction, and never taking pride in not getting help when they need it.

[nara1892]

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.

That's what I thought when I read the OP's post, from the beginning the bookie's goal in building a casino was to make a lot of money from the customers who play, simply put the more gamblers play the happier the casino will be, or the more aggressive the gamblers play the casino will smile, so it can be said that anything that can lead gamblers to self-control is something that is not approved by the casino, the casino will not think that they are wrong because every decision is made based on the wishes of the gamblers themselves.

[Powerjumboo]

~
Your ideas and thoughts about this topic are all welcome.

Of course, if there is an organization or organization for voluntary abstinence from gambling, it will certainly be very good for a gambler because there are many people who do not know how to get out of gambling, and there are many people who initially accept gambling as entertainment but later become addicted to gambling. It is important to have a service organization for such people. When there is a service organization and services are provided to gamblers, then of course the gamblers will be very experienced.

[Dr.Osh]

Most countries legalize gambling, while others consider it illegal. I'm sure this difference also affects countries that legalize gambling, but they only collect taxes from it, without caring about its impact on society. If a country were to listen to the people, many of us would want to abandon gambling because of its negative effects. At least we could limit ourselves from it.

[junder]

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.

With my own experience, yes, recovering from addiction can be done and even easy to do if we really have the intention to recover, difficulties are real and do occur but yes, the name of the process must be passed. But even if there are casinos that pay attention to their visitors such as giving warnings and even forcibly stopping players who have been playing for too long, it's good, it's just that I'm not sure that many casinos apply this method.

[rojan]

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.

That's what I thought when I read the OP's post, from the beginning the bookie's goal in building a casino was to make a lot of money from the customers who play, simply put the more gamblers play the happier the casino will be, or the more aggressive the gamblers play the casino will smile, so it can be said that anything that can lead gamblers to self-control is something that is not approved by the casino, the casino will not think that they are wrong because every decision is made based on the wishes of the gamblers themselves.

You're right, casinos are businesses, and their primary objective is to make the most money they can. That's why there is a lot of doubt as to whether operators would ever allow a universal self-exclusion system that would diminish the gambling activity on all platforms. But I believe that measures to promote responsible gambling are becoming more and more relevant to the industry's credibility in the long run. There is a need for a self-exclusion agency where problem gamblers who are unable to stop their gambling habits, particularly during emotional or impulse moments, can access help. Everyone can't handle addiction themselves, although personal responsibility should always be the initial step. A self-regulation system with industry-wide protection may be useful to both players and gambling operator reputation in the long-term.

[Julien_Olynpic]

Self-exclusion through some centralized super-organization like a regulator is possible, but for this to happen, the country would need strict gambling legislation and, correspondingly, such an organization—a regulator—endowed with exclusive powers, including the process of excluding addicted gamblers from the gaming process. However, as far as I understand, no country currently has such an agency or such legislation. Whether this is a good or bad thing is up to you to decide. But it won't happen without active public initiative.

[darewaller]

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.

You tell them? There is no way that a casino would automatically exclude a player, because there is no way that you would know how much that gambler has. Someone could lose 100 dollars and could be huge for them and could put them in economical risk, whereas someone could lose a million dollars and mean nothing to them.

So the only possible way for a casino to know how much you are gambling with, then you are not going to end up with getting any good result, that just is the reality.

[Betwrong]

~ 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 ~

No, that is not possible, unfortunately. Even if all casinos in the clearnet will join some form of organization, as you propose, and a gambler will not be able to play in any of those after self-exclusion, there's darknet, where in that case gambling sites will be appearing more and more. Of course, it would be a bad idea to play on those platforms, but try to tell that to a gambling addict. The only solution to this problem is teaching people self-control. Anything else won't work.

[fruktik]

In my quick search, the UK and Australia have implemented similar systems, the problem is that they only apply to operators licensed in their respective jurisdictions, so players can still easily move to casinos operating under other licenses. IP blocking isn't a perfect solution either, as it can easily be overcome using a VPN. So, in practice, if one really wants to self-exclude, the most important factor remains the player themselves.

It seems to me that these measures are excessive. Who should be held responsible? The player alone. They are the one making the decisions. So, there is no need to resort to radical measures. To me, it’s simply going too far. The last thing we need is an outside organization monitoring the process.

And there is no need to hand over personal data to a third party unnecessarily. I am completely against that. "Leaks" of such information are becoming the norm.

[Bryan jessy]

That is a huge task, if already imposed it will be difficult to get the right data of every gamblers and I doubt if this initiative will sit well with the casino owners they will not buy the idea, because restricting and monitoring gamblers or issuing self exclusion is something that will affect them too, because some of those addicted gamblers who keeps gambling till they lose their money, it's actually a gain to the casino, even if such body is in existence it will not operate fairly it will be a disadvantage to casinos and an advantage to gamblers as some addicted gamblers will start working on themselves and recovery. No unnecessary losses to casinos anymore.

[OsaiEmma]

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

Those are my thoughts exactly. There will be centralization so as to have ease-of-data-sharing. This will be heavily KYC dependent which I believe most of us don't really prefer. Although having one will not cause any harm too, it should be just like an added service, and those who want the feature can use it.

It could work this way:

1) When users registers in any platform, they'll KYC to the self-exclusion portal. The request will add your UID, and bet platform name.

2) The KYC will only be sent to the self-exclusion database so that they can check if you are self-excluding or not. If you are they'll respond saying you are, if not,

3) When you initiate self-exclusion, it updates the database that you're self-excluding.

4) During login in another account, they check if the account with this UID is self-excluding

5) If yes, they add a  self-exclusion tag to your account. Meanwhile the platform don't know you except for the self-exclusion platform or site.
These can be optional. Once you make it optional, you won't be using the service.

[maydna]

Having organization to control those who gambling excessively is good to limits and apply self exclude to them. But this will not works alone without initiative from gamblers to apply self exclusion to themselves. Many addicting gamblers don't check themselves about what changing to them and still saying they are okay, they will say they can control themselves.

But the organization needs cooperate with many third parties, not just casinos but also the banks, the regulators, family around the gamblers and others in their environment. But the thing is gamblers must realize the condition and aware that they are slowly change into addicted to gambling so they can activating self-exclusion and stay away from gambling.

[bakasabo]

It is not only good to have organizations, it is a must to have them and more of them. We are always told that number of gambling addicted people are increasing, but we rarely hear that number of organizations that can help them are increasing, or more services (reliable services) appear. Simply imagine that gambling addiction is a decease, but self-exclusion and organizations are cure. We have increasing number of those who are sick, so obviously we need more what can cure them.