Is player protection better than a total gambling ban?

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

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.

[noorman0]

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?

I mean, gambling really does impact family harmony. This is old local news (translated):

A report from the Central Statistics Agency (BPS), processed by Katadata Insight Center (KIC), shows that the number of divorces due to gambling in Indonesia reached 2,889 cases in 2024.

That number skyrocketed 83.77% from the 1,572 cases recorded in 2023.

I don't know how effective "protection" is, and I don't mean I reject such regulations. A total ban (technically) should be should be more of a maximum censorship with criminal consequences than limitation. If the new regulations actually allow someone to gamble without limits in an unresponsibility manner (by circumventing protections), I don't think these regulations are useful.

[Satofan44]

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?

I mean, gambling really does impact family harmony. This is old local news (translated):

A report from the Central Statistics Agency (BPS), processed by Katadata Insight Center (KIC), shows that the number of divorces due to gambling in Indonesia reached 2,889 cases in 2024.

That number skyrocketed 83.77% from the 1,572 cases recorded in 2023.

A year to year comparison of something like that is meaningless, there can be any number of reasons for which the number of cases has spiked. It may not actually even be related to gambling, but you need to know how statistics work, what is correlation and what is causation at the very least in order to know why. Nevertheless, the percentages might look scary but the number of divorces is quite high in terms of the absolute number depending on the source that one uses. Therefore, the number of divorces based on gambling represent only a tiny fraction of divorces and as such is meaningless. Do not focus on tiny problems especially when they are hard to solve, this is exactly how policy makers come up with dumb ideas and other dumb people on the internet support the same dumb ideas. Similar to how we banned plastic straws and accomplished nothing at all except making some stupid people feel good in their delusions.

I don't know how effective "protection" is, and I don't mean I reject such regulations. A total ban (technically) should be should be more of a maximum censorship with criminal consequences than limitation. If the new regulations actually allow someone to gamble without limits in an unresponsibility manner (by circumventing protections), I don't think these regulations are useful.

They are not effective in 2 scenarios. If they are voluntary or if they we deployed in a way that is not completely interconnected. Therefore, to have limitations of any kind be effective the whole gambling sector of the country would have to be unified in a single system relating to the identity of the players and even with that a blanket ban would have to be given to all foreign gambling enterprises that are not part of this system. Only in a scenario such as that one would it have any chance of working whatsoever.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

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.

Indeed, banning gambling won't stop the citizens who wants to gamble from gambling, but it definitely will and significantly reduce the number of gamblers in the country because not every will be willing to risk their fund with casinos they can only access through vpn, since they may have the knowledge that if such a casino requests a KYC verification, they may get into trouble, I believe it's nothing new to us here any more that some casinos allow users to use vpn but the moment they discover that the player is in a different country where gambling is banned, they will block the users account and even seize their money, giving all manner of silly excuses as to why they blocked the user, this is if they choose to even answer.

But like I said before, I agree to players protection though I am still of the opinion that the government, or the authorities in charge of this must device the players protection in a way it doesn't encourage every one to go into gambling carelessly and getting addicted without thinking twice about it.

[Somto9Light]

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.

Yeah. Just because there’s a total ban doesn’t mean that it can completely stop gambling activities for good, what it mostly really does is push it underground and prevent people from doing it openly. But compared to a ban, player protection, education and strong regulation could even end up being more effective in tackling gambling or gambling addiction. Banning gambling is just like trying to kill a tree by cutting down the branches one by one, it doesn’t really have much of an effect until you cut it from the root.

[Tungbulu]

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.

Absolutely, its better for one to be at peace without having any casino account, than to have and reduces their chances of living due to anxiety. And anxiety is not something one can experience or got themselves into what will keep disturbing their lives, as it might even cause them to be depressed about it. If banning can be a solution to stop addiction that can lead one into committing suicide, it will be better than way because even if the game affect anyone negatively, it won't affect it. As it will still remain what it is and though, some people might not like the idea of banning but its necessary for people to take that action.

[Accardo]

Absolutely, its better for one to be at peace without having any casino account, than to have and reduces their chances of living due to anxiety. And anxiety is not something one can experience or got themselves into what will keep disturbing their lives, as it might even cause them to be depressed about it. If banning can be a solution to stop addiction that can lead one into committing suicide, it will be better than way because even if the game affect anyone negatively, it won't affect it. As it will still remain what it is and though, some people might not like the idea of banning but its necessary for people to take that action.

That is indeed a voluntary decision from the player, which the ban won't help at enforcing, rather some psychological effects, the help players deserve is having something like a rule that could effect the way they reason or think, just restricting or banning an account is never the way.

[Russlenat]

But like I said before, I agree to players protection though I am still of the opinion that the government, or the authorities in charge of this must device the players protection in a way it doesn't encourage every one to go into gambling carelessly and getting addicted without thinking twice about it.

That is better because you are talking about what is called prevention.

However, I think it is already being done because there are already warnings like responsible gambling reminders before a player signs up. But some gamblers believe they can be responsible, then when they are already in the actual game, they cannot control themselves anymore.

So that is the role of the casino, to notice those players who are gambling carelessly. Although it goes against their goal since they want to be profitable and they can benefit from careless players, a law has to be complied with, so they should follow it.

[Wakate]

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.

Yeah. Just because there’s a total ban doesn’t mean that it can completely stop gambling activities for good, what it mostly really does is push it underground and prevent people from doing it openly. But compared to a ban, player protection, education and strong regulation could even end up being more effective in tackling gambling or gambling addiction. Banning gambling is just like trying to kill a tree by cutting down the branches one by one, it doesn’t really have much of an effect until you cut it from the root.

Players protection can really be helpful in reducing the possibility of gamblers becoming addicted to gambling.
Gambling can be reduced when government comes in to help gamblers from involving themselves into gambling everytime they need money to settle problems that is facing them. A ban on gambling will never solve the problem at all and people can use other means to gamble.

[lovesmayfamilis]

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.

It's not bad, but are there any addicted people who can quit gambling on their own? Yes, psychologists say that without personal desire, no treatment will be complete, but there is always a risk that this dependence will return.

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.

And this is more true than not. A casino is a place where people with "extra" money tend to flock, and the casino plans to ruin these people, in the best sense of the word. All the other random people who come to the casino, as if from a bad life, hoping to earn a bowl of soup, are also of little value to the casino, since everyone understands that the casino is not the place to earn money. Therefore, in the end, we get the fact that the casino seems to (verbally) care about the players, but still, most of all, they are interested in their business first of all and the business of those who "cover" them, because no one brings anyone to play at the casino at gunpoint. People lose money on their own.🤷‍♂️

[AmoreJaz]

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.

Yeah. Just because there’s a total ban doesn’t mean that it can completely stop gambling activities for good, what it mostly really does is push it underground and prevent people from doing it openly. But compared to a ban, player protection, education and strong regulation could even end up being more effective in tackling gambling or gambling addiction. Banning gambling is just like trying to kill a tree by cutting down the branches one by one, it doesn’t really have much of an effect until you cut it from the root.

Players protection can really be helpful in reducing the possibility of gamblers becoming addicted to gambling.
Gambling can be reduced when government comes in to help gamblers from involving themselves into gambling everytime they need money to settle problems that is facing them. A ban on gambling will never solve the problem at all and people can use other means to gamble.

Total ban is indeed not the solution here because we all know that gambling is part of human history already. Since time immemorial, humans were already in gambling spree. It may have had different kind of form but still it is gambling. So player's protection can only do so much if the gambler himself is also monitoring himself.

[o48o]

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

Most of the civilized world?

Thing is that banning something totally can increase crime when people are finding ways around the laws, like VPN etc. It also can create distrust towards the government for denying something completely.

But by addressing and accepting the problems with transparency creates trust for government doing it. And by recognizing that there's a problem is a good start when it comes to fighting against addiction and supporting the victims of it. Also regulations can help get rid of ton of shady business, while getting tax money as well.

[TastyChillySauce00]

Player protection is far better than putting a total ban to the gambling. Giving protection will make them controllable instead of let them go to the underground, then they will find offshore to bet with their money.
So why let them to give their money to other country? This is i think fully banning the gambling sites is a wrong step.

It's because whatever how hard the regulators try to ban gambling sites, people have thousands of ways to access it.
How long until they realize ban gambling sites is not a proper solution over this.

[Itz-prisigold]

Player protection is far better than putting a total ban to the gambling. Giving protection will make them controllable instead of let them go to the underground, then they will find offshore to bet with their money.
So why let them to give their money to other country? This is i think fully banning the gambling sites is a wrong step.

It's because whatever how hard the regulators try to ban gambling sites, people have thousands of ways to access it.
How long until they realize ban gambling sites is not a proper solution over this.

Of course, that's right and I think that one of the other issues for a complete ban on gambling is that it remove a lot of the safety features that a licensed platform should provide.  At regulated sites, operators will be able to watch for unusual betting patterns, remind players to take breaks, and offer you a self exclusion options before things get out of hand.

However players lose these protections as soon as they make the step to unregulated platforms, making it very challenging to detect and help players dealing with gambling addiction.  I think the best way to protect players is to not ban gambling, because it helps to minimise the risks.

[henmark]

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.

Difficult situation I agree, but the process for this is only simple, and that is, we only need to stop doing what we usually do. Addicts have an unlimited urge no doubt, but if there is no way to access those thing that we are getting addicted to, then that is one of the best steps of combating them, until the time that we will never think of them anymore. For some, it may still be hard, and this is where other process can add up, like they will now go into a rehabilitation centre. Some also attend a meeting online, and so on...

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.

It should start with us first. Then a casino can also have a restriction program. Lastly, from the people around us but that is only if they are aware with our gambling activities. Only those casinos that only cares for the money, are the ones that are not supporting this player protection.