Is player protection better than a total gambling ban?

[ImGenius]

I think this is a much better approach. If we look at history banning such gambling did not stop addicted players and eventually they moved to unlicensed gaming platforms where there was no consumer protection. There are many countries that have already adopted such frameworks. For example the UK is well known because they have tools like deposit limit time out ability check for some customers and game stop self-exclusion program.

On the other hand, Of course these tools are not a complete solution because a determined gambler will find some way to gamble. although many countries set registrations in licenced platform unlicenced platform has no restriction which could attract those wandering gambler. The key is to ensure that gambling operators genuinely prioritize the well-being of players, rather than viewing responsible gambling as just another rule-following obligation.

[Agbe]

Aside from the country mentioned in this article, what other countries do you know that are following this kind of approach?

Let me start from the subject matter of the thread. And I will say yes, "gambling protection is better than banning the gambler account in the casino". Because it will make the gambler to limit anxiety of gambling excessively. And for the quoted text. I have not heard this from another country except this thread.

[Vaculin]

Even if I would agree for a total ban for gambling, I still have this thought that most of the government would not resort to it because it will only result into significant losses in the state revenue. That is why they focus more on player protection than outright ban for gambling through creating measures like restricting payments, regulating ads, mandatory self-exclusion and setting limits.

However, I still don't think that this could be the best for gambling addicts. What we need is an outright ban so that we can see the total positive effect in just less time.

[hedgeh0g]

I think this is a much better approach. If we look at history banning such gambling did not stop addicted players and eventually they moved to unlicensed gaming platforms where there was no consumer protection. There are many countries that have already adopted such frameworks. For example the UK is well known because they have tools like deposit limit time out ability check for some customers and game stop self-exclusion program.

On the other hand, Of course these tools are not a complete solution because a determined gambler will find some way to gamble. although many countries set registrations in licenced platform unlicenced platform has no restriction which could attract those wandering gambler. The key is to ensure that gambling operators genuinely prioritize the well-being of players, rather than viewing responsible gambling as just another rule-following obligation.

The fact is, the well-being of players is the opposite for business owners, because if players win, the gambling business organizer will earn little or nothing. Therefore, it's better not to wait and think that someone will take care of us, but to try to improve ourselves as a player day by day and move towards our dreams and big wins, figuring out how exactly we can do this. The same goes for protection: I've long relied solely on myself, not on anyone else to protect me in gambling, risk, and other matters.

[suzanne5223]

Player protection is a better option than a total gambling ban, based on how it will help gamblers control their urge for the game.
I believe the player protection is heavily practiced in the US, and we have seen the gamblers who did self-exclusion in one state and traveled to another to gamble, which are winning was withheld. Another country, I believe practice it is the Philippines, through the use of the PAGCOR regulates especially for offshore operators. South Africa, Singapore, Australia, etc, also do the same thing.

[qwertyup23]

I don’t know any country in particular, but I thought player protection is supposed to be something the casino should adhere to and that should be something compulsory and not one country mandating it and other countries' players being treated less.

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.

The problem with an outright prohibition in gambling is that people would always find a way to circumvent in order to gain access to the platform.

I am on the belief that having a slow-and-steady approach towards curing gambling addiction is the way to go. Instead of quitting in one go, it should be a relatively lengthy process where you slowly lose interest on the gambling scene. It's like building a habit- slow but consistent process would always prevail over a sudden burst of energy in a single day. On the latter, it will most likely pull you back and tempt you once again, thereby being stuck on that same process all over again.

[Fredomago]

Even if I would agree for a total ban for gambling, I still have this thought that most of the government would not resort to it because it will only result into significant losses in the state revenue. That is why they focus more on player protection than outright ban for gambling through creating measures like restricting payments, regulating ads, mandatory self-exclusion and setting limits.

However, I still don't think that this could be the best for gambling addicts. What we need is an outright ban so that we can see the total positive effect in just less time.

You said it right, the government who allows gambling will see the benefits rather than the possible cost, and similar to what you said they will keep the profits that the state may get out from this inustry and maximize whatever that they can earned, though they will find alternative options as gambling addicted might have weight but it's not as valuable compared to what they'll gaining especially those who have other side benefits from the casino owners.

[lodocus]

If you’ve caught a virus, getting vaccinated won’t help. You need to seek treatment. Such precautions should be taken from the very beginning.

If gambling addiction has become a serious problem, setting certain limits won’t be enough to solve it. To resolve the problem at its root, you need to cut yourself off from everything. Otherwise, you’re just pretending to have solved it.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Gambling addiction cannot be totally eradicated because people who are involved are the ones who fail to control how they should responsibly gamble in such a way that does not affect them in any way, so neither the casino nor the player will be responsible for any addiction they develop.

But gambling protection is advisable, and can be used as protection instead of a ban, casino platforms are not really thoughtful in similarly providing solutions for any form of addiction, because they concentrate more on their services than gamblers' experiences in an abnormal way.

In conclusion, every Gambler should plan themselves well and know what is at stake for gambling because we are going to face every repercussion to what we have caused for ourselves as a result of a reckless gambling attitude.

[Smartprofit]

In my opinion, banning gambling will achieve nothing. People will find a way around any ban. For example, we recently discussed the TV show "Deal or No Deal" on the forum. Legally, it's not considered gambling. But in essence, in my opinion, it's classic gambling.

If a participant in "Deal or No Deal" has already won a cash prize (acquired the right to use, own, and manage the funds), then they can be considered an ordinary gambler willing to risk their own money.

Then the game host asks them: "Are you going to settle for the initial win or try to win even more money?!" When a participant forgoes their initial win in favor of continuing to play, they are fully engaged in gambling. They become a gambler. Is there a bet? Yes! Is there a risk of losing? Yes! Is there a chance of winning more money? Also yes! It's classic gambling.💁

The fact that it's cleverly disguised as a TV show is irrelevant.  Perhaps the organizers of this show don't need a gambling license. But that's purely a legal matter. In reality, it's a classic gambling game.

People have been gambling for thousands of years and will continue to do so in the future.

In my opinion, bans and restrictions won't help here. We simply need to understand that the risk of developing gambling addiction always exists, and we must strive to minimize it.

[alegotardo]

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.

~~~

Aside from the country mentioned in this article, what other countries do you know that are following this kind of approach?

I definitely believe that having good regulation and sensible consumer protections is better than ban full gambling.
I say "trying to ban" because I any government can truly succeed to do this, as long as a country tries to prevent your citizens from accessing gambling websites, there will always be people who find ways around the restrictions by using offshore casinos, using VPNs or even falsifying KYC verification. Than.... I think it is better to allow people to gamble, making reasonable safeguards, require sites to comply with clear regulations in order to operate legally, and the government have to allocate part of the tax revenue to programs that promote awareness and provide treatment for people struggling with gambling addiction.

Here in Brazil, there was a time when only sports betting websites were legal. As a result, thousands of people who wanted to play slots, dice, card games and other casino games simply turned to unlicensed offshore casinos instead. In my opinion, outright blocking access is never the best solution.

[noorman0]

I think a total ban is the latest policy that will not make anyone gamble, in fact people don't care about the ban and  continue to gamble with some access tricks. Now with a more relaxed policy will it really be accepted and prevent addiction? I imagine there will be more divorce cases in my country because of tthis protection policy.

[Z-tight]

I think a total ban is the latest policy that will not make anyone gamble,

But there are non-addicts who would be unhappy if gambling is banned in their jurisdiction. And they also do not want to gamble illegally, which is what one would be doing if they gamble where it is banned.

Now with a more relaxed policy will it really be accepted and prevent addiction?

Even a complete ban may not stop an addict, they could still find a way to gamble in offshore platforms and all. It is hard to stop an addiction, as the addict must be willing to stop and get help; if not any policy would be in futility.

[fredericktaylor]

The government will never be able to completely control the common people from gambling through a complete ban, somehow the gamblers will continue to gamble, so I think that instead of completely stopping gambling, stricter rules can be made on it. I think that for the safety of the general people, some government rules can be set on casinos, such as the casinos should be properly managed according to government rules and all the gamblers who have lost everything and are facing addiction should be provided with financial assistance and proper treatment, it is better to set proper rules instead of completely closing the casinos.

[junder]

I myself affirm that recovering from addiction can be said to be one of the difficult situations with a difficult process because here we must be able to fight ourselves with a strong sense of wanting to gamble.

We can expect protection from anyone for ourselves, even though we are active users who can still protect us is ourselves so as not to experience addiction or other adverse effects. The casino will not pay attention to our state.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

The government will never be able to completely control the common people from gambling through a complete ban, somehow the gamblers will continue to gamble, so I think that instead of completely stopping gambling, stricter rules can be made on it. I think that for the safety of the general people, some government rules can be set on casinos, such as the casinos should be properly managed according to government rules and all the gamblers who have lost everything and are facing addiction should be provided with financial assistance and proper treatment, it is better to set proper rules instead of completely closing the casinos.

Thoughtful comment but the idea of providing financial assistance to those have lot everything to gambling due to addiction will only encourage more reckless gambling..
You will agree with me that fear of getting addicted and possibly loosing so much to gambling is what has kept alot of gamblers on their toes, they are careful with making decisions in gambling, some have even came up with limits to how much they can gamble on a day or week or month, all of this strategies are to ensure the gambler ground himself enough never to get carried away into addiction.

Now, knowing that the casino in conjunction with the government or the government themselves will provide financial support or assistance to those who carelessly lose everything to gambling will make alot of chronic gamblers stop paying attention to responsible gambling, and this will only cause more and more gamblers to become addicted, so I think this is not a good idea.

[Somegory]

I think a total ban is the latest policy that will not make anyone gamble, in fact people don't care about the ban and  continue to gamble with some access tricks. Now with a more relaxed policy will it really be accepted and prevent addiction? I imagine there will be more divorce cases in my country because of tthis protection policy.

I am lost with your point about divorce cases after protection policy is been active, are you saying that gambling is the reason why many marriages held this long? Or are you saying that most marriages makes money to survive via gambling?

Total ban can't stop gamblers, one can be living in Thailand and open a casino account in France using a very strong VPN connection, it's not going to be the end for gamblers in a country.

Someone who don't want to gamble anymore simply because they are addicted to gambling needs to make up their mind about gambling, they must be willing to put an end to the addiction by themselves, you help yourself first before someone else can give you an hand.

[Africolo]

I don’t know any country in particular, but I thought player protection is supposed to be something the casino should adhere to and that should be something compulsory and not one country mandating it and other countries' players being treated less.

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.

Banning a player who's not self conscious of himself and how he allows emotions to eat deep into him and leads to addiction shouldn't be a burden on anyone or the casino board but in a way of helping protect the individual in other not to be victim of addiction strict rules can be enacted to regulate how people gamble, even the casinos board won't even allow the blockage of other gamblers not to have access to gambling because that's a way of hindering them from making their own profits, the best way is just to have a rule that restricts gamblers from becoming addicts.

If a gambler is ban on a particular board from gambling due to addictions he will always finds his way around it and opens another account in another locality and continue his gambling, so banning is not the solution to addiction but regulation will help to keep the gamblers in their limits.

[Nrcewker]

Yes, these measures are possible in government regulated casinos. Since such casinos are required to comply with government regulations, they encourage gamblers to gamble responsibly and limit their gambling.

However, if we look at the practical side, independent casinos, especially crypto casinos are primarily focused on maximising their profits. As a result, despite government guidelines, they are unlikely to intervene when a gambler develops an addiction.

An addicted gambler, if given the choice, is also more likely to choose an unregulated casino. This creates a loophole that both unregulated casinos and addicted gamblers can exploit for their own benefit.

[Frankolala]

Just the way you cannot control drug addiction is the same way you cannot control how people gamble because you are not with them always. Moreover, don't be surprised that majority of these casinos are owned by the government officials but used someone very close to them to front it. It means that they'll never be in support of it even if they come out in public to say they support it because it means bad business for them.