Is player protection better than a total gambling ban?

[Vaculin]

I basically don't know any country that is implementing this law to protect her citizens from self destruct but it is a good one and I would love it if more countries adopt this strategy. There are people who are losing valuable properties because of addiction if only these people had something to restrict them they wouldn't have gone that far, and this might also be a plus for casinos because countries that restrict its citizens from gambling could adjust their restriction so people can gamble with these protection scheme, and betting platforms wouldn't be tagged as a bad company or entertainment.

There are laws already implemented, and even self-exclusion is one thing that can help gamblers. I have tried that one, and it has been helpful for me for months now.

But do not expect that the government knows everything we are doing. It still depends on us. If we get reckless and want to throw money away, then the government cannot fully stop us from doing it.

But if we seek help, we can ask them or the casinos themselves to exclude us. That should be treated as a good first move if we are really hoping to cure addiction and avoid future damage.

[alastantiger]

I don't know other countries that is very serious with player's protection but I agree that this method is better than banning gambling completely, because even if gambling is banned, there are still members in that country that will fine a way to gamble without being caught, we are in a digital age, people that hide in their room and gamble online in an offshore casino using a VPN if the site is blocked from their end. So, it still doesn't mean that banning gambling will stop every citizen from betting.

For the players, players protection benefits them but it does not benefit the casino that is why the casino will always prefer to ban players. There are many cases that people won big amount of money but instead of the casinos to favour the players, they look for excuses so as they can ban the players account and refuse to pay out. This is the reason behind why I advise any gambler to not make use of VPN or create a fake profile cuz you can never tell when a casino might decide to verify your identity through KYC just because you won a big amount of money and now they have frozen your withdrawal with the excuse that it seems suspicious.

Casinos should always protect their players and any casino that does that has my respect and I believe many gamblers will also trust that casino to make use of them but those that go about banning people account will receive a negative reputation both on the forum and outside the forum and with time they might likely lose customers because all gamblers love where they are treated right.

[Onyeeze]

Having to hear a total gambling ban may be easy for us but in reality, that would also be difficult for the government itself especially that not all gamblers are addicts, and banning gambling could also mean losing the total revenues that the government have benefited from the taxes paid by a huge number of casinos. That is why if they can prioritize first to focused on player protection, they will stick on it rather than banning gambling entirely and lose all their opportunities that they can build from the massive funds paid by casinos.

the reason why that I am not in support of what some countries government are doing for banning gambling it is because gambling platforms such as casino are a business owned by some people and they have been doing such business for years so if government should Ban their casino gambling platform, will a government provide a source there can be able to sustain their families, the answer is no, and nobody is forcing anybody to involve in gambling but government are see massive losses of people in gambling as a setback to the country,  but that's not true.

[Davidvictorson]

Addiction is a general problem. I know that only a few percent of gamblers are not addicted. Instead of player protection, I would prefer a temporary ban for all gamblers until addiction is reduced. And if there is no positive change, a permanent ban should be given.

In my estimation and if I understand the OP correctly, player protection which is what was described in the quote is way better compared to a temporary ban on suspected players who are struggling with gambling addiction.

What I don’t understand from the OP is that who gets the bill. Is it the player or the government?

[GxSTxV]

You can't cure addiction with limits!
All those players who will hit their limits will just move to a new platform that doesn't enforce those limits.

So what will you have to do to stop them from doing it? Oh, BAN that platform!
And now that we have the first two steps of the problem, can you see where this will lead?
Regulated platforms going bankrupt because people don't play as much on them with limits and an influx of platforms that don't respect anything, so, congratulations, you now have a far bigger problem than you had before when you still had regulated casinos in your jurisdiction!

I respect your opinion and what you said isn’t totally wrong. Not everyone who gambles is an addict but some are on that path or maybe closer from falling into, so basically these tools can help prevent things from getting worse in my opinion and also my own experience. True, they won’t and can’t cure addiction but they can support thir way to recovery.

Even if some players move to another platform I think being banned from the one they use most can still help alot. Recovery starts with the person’s own decision and these restrictions can deff reinforce that decision.

It’s similar to drug addiction, so if drugs were freely available everywhere, surely far fewer people would be able to stay clean. Restrictions don’t cure addiction but they can make recovery more achievable, or at least the best results, the same applies to gambling.

[lionheart78]

I doubt if any casino will want to set up such policy because it might seems like their own loss, the more addicted people are the more profit they make, when a person is addicted to gambling he just keeps gambling nonstop and guess what happens to the casinos; they make more profit especially when the player keeps losing to the game. Nevertheless even if such policy is already existing I doubt if some people will still obey it, so players are responsible for themselves, and should protect their money, have a budget to play with and quit playing once the limit is exceeded, there is no need to ban gambling and that approach is not even possible because how exactly will it be ban for what purpose also.

I think the question here is whether the player protection is better than total gambling ban and not about the position of casinos towards implementing such programs.  If the government insist to make the casino to implement player protection program, these casinos have to follow the implementation or else it will hinder their operation.

Anyway, I come to think of it that a total gambling ban is also a form of player protection, so I do not think that we have to compare these two becaue gambling ban is under the player protection measure umbrella.