Is player protection better than a total gambling ban?

[Russlenat]

A ban doesn't solve anything. At most, it makes things harder. Anyone who wants to gamble will find a way. There are countless platforms out there. There's always a way around restrictions. People who still think bans can solve problems are completely out of touch with reality. In my country gambling is illegal except through one official platform, yet millions of people still gamble through various other ways. They haven't been able to solve anything with bans, they never will.

That is the reason why I think doing a blanket ban will only worsen the problem. It will not solve addiction, it will only make gamblers harder to monitor, and some may even end up using scam casinos. If the government really wants to protect gamblers, they should regulate casinos properly so gamblers will just access those that are licensed in the country.

Maybe their knowledge is already outdated and they do not see what kind of business opportunity casinos can bring to a country, especially if they allow physical casinos. Businesses like hotels, restaurants, and other tourism-related services can also benefit from that.

Gambling is not really bad, excessive gambling is, and that is where proper regulation should come in.

[Rashlyowl]

As gambling has spiraled out of control, player protection could be a solution. A total ban will not change an addict, they will find other ways to access gambling, no matter how. Player protection will serve as the final safeguard for addicts, beyond that, only they themselves know how they will act. Sometimes, when they have been limited on a particular site, they will look for another site where they won't face such limits.

[bhadz]

Gambling is not really bad, excessive gambling is, and that is where proper regulation should come in.

I agree on this. If we have this on our country, I think that we'll see lesser stories of gambling addiction. But I don't see that often because it should start within the gamblers and just the platforms will apply that. Even if there's so much reminders and limits, the discipline is still the one that's being the utmost factor why a gambler ends up being addicted. A total ban won't do, it will only make them want to gamble more and find more ways in accessing online casinos.

[Orpichukwu]

And I will always support strict rules being put in place that will help gamblers from getting addicted rather than banning it and preventing those who are supposed to be gambling freely from accessing it.

Strict sounds more reasonable, but the reality is that gambling platforms are not going to respect it. They would also look for ways to make the gambler deposit more so that they can have better profits.

That’s exactly where the problem lies; the system is in place, but the casino might not want to implement it because it will limit them on the amount they can be making from the player unless there are strict rules to monitor and force them to follow it up. It will be hard for us to see the casino fully limit the player from depositing when they see signs of addiction.

[Hispo]

I cannot speak much about my personal experience with gambling here in my country, because even thought gambling is legal here, I don't think there is not much protection to gamblers in a broad way. Here gamblers are pretty much alone if they become addicted to gambling and the government only enforces basic regulation and fairness checks on registered casinos in the country.

The regulation here is lax, so casinos can grow significantly and be taxed by the government, in the eyes of the government, that transfer of wealth is significantly more important than protecting gamblers and bettors in general.

[Jody.Drummer]

Protection will be better if it is not by stopping gambling completely, of course the best thing is to stop gambling completely, because after all once gambling then it has the possibility of addiction that can make everything continue. Many people who I think have experienced bad events with gambling but with the reality is not many people can recover from their addiction and still be on the addiction. A good option is to be able to stop gambling, but I know it is quite a difficult thing even though some have managed to completely stop, so if it is difficult then force yourself to be able to limit it or protect yourself by gambling wisely.

[Sandra_hakeem]

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.

They are more focused on setting it as an etiquette, than running a review to test how effective it'd be . Doesn't sound like a problem-solving idea at all.

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!

It doesn't make sense to say, maybe, they should try to make these jurisdictions conjoined to function as a single unit, create and pledge on a different internal rules, also make a stricter, but globally-recognized set of regulations in a way that one gambler is entitled to 1 account at a time? Hehe, that sounds odd.
What more can I say? You can't caution a rich man on how he spends his money, so I guess the same applies to an addicted gambler.

[ralle14]

I know most casinos have one or two of these player protection features, but from what i've seen, the result is the opposite because there are bettors who would abuse and blame the casino to get their money back.

I'm all for finding a better solution, though this one doesn't feel like it, because it still comes down to whether the person is willing to take action before it's too late.

As for the countries, I know some European countries are doing their best to come up with a solution because I recall Valve also disabled CS2 case unboxing.

[m2017]

This type of regulation will probably result in the improvement of the gambling industry, and I wish more countries would follow this instead of thinking about banning gambling, because gambling addiction has become rampant and already out of control.

A complete ban on the gambling industry benefits no one: the regulator doesn't receive taxes, the owner doesn't make a profit, citizens don't get jobs, gamblers don't get their game. And healthcare workers don't get their patients.

https://sigma.world/news/jresponsible-gambling-betting-customer-experience/

“In this context, tools such as deposit limits, loss limits, temporary breaks and self-exclusion mechanisms have become part of the customer journey. When signs of vulnerability are identified, customer support can direct users to organisations specialising in psychological support and treatment for gambling addiction.

This could prove to be a very effective tool for controlling gamblers, as it would allow them to limit their behavior and protect them from their own harmful effects (excessive gambling and uncontrolled spending). I wonder if casinos could abuse such mechanisms, as they could also restrict lucky gamblers. For example, they could use such a control tool when a gambler is "suspended" (temporarily banned) from gambling due to excessive luck and frequent winnings.

Also, the weak point of this "control tool" is that a gambler can simply move to another casino and continue gambling there. How can this be addressed? Create a shared registry between all casinos, with information automatically shared between them. If a gambler who has "exceeded their limits" attempts to play at another casino, they will be temporarily banned from the new platform. What would happen then? Should all gamblers be forced to use KYC and enter the casino using a passport \ ID?

The director explained that the objective is to build a relationship based on trust and support, free of judgement, while providing resources to help players maintain control over their gambling activity.

Casinos are simply beginning to realize that it's unprofitable to "squeeze every last drop of cash" out of gamblers, and that it's more profitable to keep them hooked so they can bring their money back to the casino periodically. Because a gambler with an addiction will give money to a medical center, not a casino, and it is more profitable not to bring gamblers to this condition.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Of course it is better.

A complete ban on the gambling industry benefits no one: the regulator doesn't receive taxes, the owner doesn't make a profit, citizens don't get jobs, gamblers don't get their game. And healthcare workers don't get their patients.

Besides, bans are not usually very effective, as people always find ways to gamble, and with the internet and cryptocurrencies they are even less effective.

Casinos are simply beginning to realize that it's unprofitable to "squeeze every last drop of cash" out of gamblers, and that it's more profitable to keep them hooked so they can bring their money back to the casino periodically. Because a gambler with an addiction will give money to a medical center, not a casino, and it is more profitable not to bring gamblers to this condition.

I think the analogy falls a bit short here, as a ‘whale’ who loses all their money in a single night brings the casino more profit than hundreds of small-stake gamblers who visit regularly. What’s more, the money that such a ‘whale’ might pay a psychiatrist to help with their problems is also far less than what they might lose at the casino in a single session.

[Oasisman]

Banning everyone from gambling just because someone did it wrong is not a good idea. Gambling protection may prevent someone from getting addicted, though it's not guaranteed, but that's way better than a complete ban on gambling. 
But how about those already deep into addiction? How do they plan to cure it? I guess they are still under the player protection program, and the measures mentioned (deposit limits, loss limits, temporary breaks, and self-exclusion mechanisms) might not be the best course of action to help them. Most casinos won't monitor their clients' activities unless they win a massive amount. Some gambling addicts can't hit those thresholds, so they will remain unnoticed. 

[Fiasem20]

In my own perspective,if casinos aren’t only concerned about their pocket every casinos are meant to enact an active protection policy for their customers,it’s because the government haven’t been seeing an active protection policy that’s the reason why most governments have banned the existence of gambling in their country.So I would say that player protection is more better than gambling ban,banning citizens from gambling doesn’t change their perspective in any way because if they leave that country they can still gamble,so the problem must be tackled from the root by ensuring protection from casino either psychologically or financially.

[lovesmayfamilis]

It is always necessary to consider who benefits from limiting the player by different methods to eliminate his gambling addiction. The answer comes to the surface; it is necessary for the player himself, but it will definitely be indifferent to the casino. What is chasing the casino business? Squeeze as much money as possible out of a large number of players, thereby increasing profit. If there are restrictions, the casino loses not only customers but also profits. Now, one can ask, if there should be such concern for the players, why isn't it in other directions? Why do so many people come to the casino to feed their family, hoping to win at least a few bucks? Maybe the government should think about the normal employment of people to ensure their normal standard of living.

[Livingleged]

Players protection is important in gambling, that’s the only way to help some addicted folks. But I still think ban options should be added, the self exclusion aren’t enough. most of the betting platforms I have come across only have options for self exclusion and deactivate account temporarily.
Sometimes when I lose a bet I wish I can close my bet account permanently but unfortunately I don’t get that, the only option there is the self exclusion  and deactivate account temporarily, and the both can still be reactivated. It will just keep you away from it for a while until the set date is reached before you’ll be able to place a bet with the account again. There some funny platforms you can self exclude your self for a particular time frame but if you change your mind you can cancel it and continue betting even if the date have not yet reached. Thats not discipline honestly.