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.

[cryptopick.bet]

Depends on the regulator behind it, not just whether the tools exist.
Curaçao used to run everything through four Master License Holders who barely checked what their sub-licensed operators actually did. A casino could have deposit limits and self-exclusion listed on the site with nobody verifying any of it worked.
Their 2024 reform pushed everyone onto direct CGA licenses and made responsible gambling tools mandatory, which is a real step up. But the CGA itself says it won't touch individual disputes. It watches for patterns and can pull a license, it's not going to personally chase your withdrawal.
So having the tools is now a box operators have to tick. Whether they actually help you if something goes wrong is still a different story.

[Hispo]

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.

I have always thought those tools which are offered by casinos, like self-exclusion, limit on deposits and so on, are intended to be used by gamblers who are not actually completely addicted to gambling yet, instead they are used by people who realize there are developing harmful habits during their gaming sessions and need a little bit of a push in order to keep themselves responsible and not to gamble more than they can afford to lose to their bad luck and the edge of the house.

In the majority of occasions, those who are severely addicted to gambling and betting will need more help than having those tools at their disposal, they would need actual psychological or psychiatric help in order to cope with their urges to open a new account on a different casino, after applying self-exclusion on themselves..

[LUCKMCFLY]

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.

I'll stick with this; it's a great way of saying things, and nothing beats personal experience. And let me tell you something: people who self-exclude are the bravest in the world, and I also consider them very advanced and intelligent, because they are the ones who have realized that if something hurts you, you should avoid it and make sure it doesn't. This is what we need to learn from self-exclusion.

[Jody.Drummer]

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.

I'll stick with this; it's a great way of saying things, and nothing beats personal experience. And let me tell you something: people who self-exclude are the bravest in the world, and I also consider them very advanced and intelligent, because they are the ones who have realized that if something hurts you, you should avoid it and make sure it doesn't. This is what we need to learn from self-exclusion.

People who can distance themselves from things that harm them have a positive mindset, as they strive to avoid destruction, such as addiction. However, many people continue on this path until they face real destruction. This destruction or harm from gambling won't happen if we can avoid it ourselves, because after all, it's up to us to do so. Someone who tries to recover from addiction or avoid things that can harm them is someone who is aware of their mistakes, and this attempt to recover is a smart step they must take to achieve positive results.

[fruktik]

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. For player protection to be effective, each regulated casino or sportsbook will give a report of addicted gamblers to the technical team, which will take a while.

Casinos won't tighten their rules, as this could discourage not only new players but also existing ones.

I believe these measures are excessive. Yes, warnings are necessary, but they should be done very delicately and carefully if casinos want to maintain not only their customer base but also their reputation.

[Fredomago]

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. For player protection to be effective, each regulated casino or sportsbook will give a report of addicted gamblers to the technical team, which will take a while.

Casinos won't tighten their rules, as this could discourage not only new players but also existing ones.

I believe these measures are excessive. Yes, warnings are necessary, but they should be done very delicately and carefully if casinos want to maintain not only their customer base but also their reputation.

Exactly, they can provide warnings or ads that will bring awareness to their clients and possible clients but in terms of tighten their rules that may push away their existing clients, it's needs to be careful with updating or changing their rules, as they know that the clients is far important as they are the ones who's bringing profits to the business.

Before taking that steps, they will make sure that it will be benificials on both sides, else, they will not going to implement any or change any from how they'll treat their business.

[danherbias07]

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.

I do get the point, but I think player protection is better because it will point out players who are abusing their gambling time and money. It's like a notification that the customer support will receive whenever a player is over their deposit limits or is self-excluding themselves back and forth. (There's only 1-day to wait if you apply to cancel the self-exclusion.)

I think the real issue here is whether the gambling companies will really make an effort to do it. Notify a psychological support when they think a gambler is near addiction, and also provide more customer support so they can monitor the players. Those things need funds. Those CS will have salaries. I think the question is who is going to pay them.

[bubilas]

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

It's high time for government officials to understand that prohibitions don't work at all. Not in alcohol, not in gambling, not in crypto. We live in the age of the internet, and it's a time of freedom. Any government-imposed blockades are easily circumvented. But it's impossible to get into people's heads and change their ways; they'll continue to think the way they always have. Therefore, governments must always understand why people gamble and why they so often have problems. It all stems from a bad life and a lack of discipline.

[davis196]

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.

I find it hard to believe that a crypto casino customer support would direct gambling addicts to organizations specializing in psychological support and treatment for gambling addiction. Self-exclusion exists for years and it simply doesn't help that much for reducing the amount of gambling addicts. I still haven't found a crypto casino, that has deposit limits, but I do like the idea of limiting the amount of crypto the gambler could deposit at a given time frame. The crypto casinos won't agree to such proposal, because this would limit their revenue. Yes, having such "responsible gambling" policies is better than a total gambling ban, but those policies aren't effective enough to combat the growing levels of gambling addiction.

[eisen33]

It's high time for government officials to understand that prohibitions don't work at all. Not in alcohol, not in gambling, not in crypto. We live in the age of the internet, and it's a time of freedom. Any government-imposed blockades are easily circumvented. But it's impossible to get into people's heads and change their ways; they'll continue to think the way they always have. Therefore, governments must always understand why people gamble and why they so often have problems. It all stems from a bad life and a lack of discipline.

I think that, for many people gambling is a way to look for an additional source of income. If governments focused on improving their citizens' standard of living and helping people become more financially secure, I believe far fewer people would turn to gambling. I also agree that, in today's world, it's not difficult to bypass restrictions. As long as you understand the basics, finding a way around blocks is relatively easy.

[SportbetOne]

It's high time for government officials to understand that prohibitions don't work at all. Not in alcohol, not in gambling, not in crypto. We live in the age of the internet, and it's a time of freedom. Any government-imposed blockades are easily circumvented.

You hit the nail on the head. Bans are completely useless. From an industry perspective whenever a country outright bans gambling the traffic just immediately shifts to unlicensed offshore sites. The government loses all the tax revenue and the players lose whatever little protection they had. It just creates a massive black market where shady operators can vanish with player funds and nobody can do anything about it.
Player protection tools like deposit limits and self exclusion aren't perfect. Half the time operators just implement them to tick a compliance box for the regulators anyway. But having a regulated market where problem gamblers at least have the option to hit a panic button is way better than the wild west. For the guys here playing from strictly banned jurisdictions do you even bother looking for casinos with responsible gambling tools or is it just about finding whoever actually accepts your crypto?

[TopTort777]

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.

I find it hard to believe that a crypto casino customer support would direct gambling addicts to organizations specializing in psychological support and treatment for gambling addiction. Self-exclusion exists for years and it simply doesn't help that much for reducing the amount of gambling addicts. I still haven't found a crypto casino, that has deposit limits, but I do like the idea of limiting the amount of crypto the gambler could deposit at a given time frame. The crypto casinos won't agree to such proposal, because this would limit their revenue. Yes, having such "responsible gambling" policies is better than a total gambling ban, but those policies aren't effective enough to combat the growing levels of gambling addiction.

I wish to see how can crypto casinos handle with "directing users to organisations specialising in psychological support and treatment for gambling addiction and identifying problem/user" when crypto gambler run from KYC like from fire I dont understand how help should work if you direct someone anonymous to receive that help. For mechanism to work, user verification and identification must be a must, but gambler will never agree to that.

[Dunamisx]

I will never be in support of a gambling ban all because of related issues with gambler protection, every Gambler should be able to protect himself from engaging in abnormal gambling behavior he would have choose to go for when gambling, one circulation in this manner is being introduced, if I may go with my opinion, I will suggest that both should not be necessary for us to consider except we choose on either for ourselves and not by any regulatory authority.

[avp2306]

I will never be in support of a gambling ban all because of related issues with gambler protection, every Gambler should be able to protect himself from engaging in abnormal gambling behavior he would have choose to go for when gambling, one circulation in this manner is being introduced, if I may go with my opinion, I will suggest that both should not be necessary for us to consider except we choose on either for ourselves and not by any regulatory authority.

Total banning make only sense if gambling addiction became rampant and government seems cannot do anything to fight the spread of illegal casinos.

But they can do early action to fight those things that can affect their user. Maybe what they need is to have proper regulation and they should try those online gambling became inaccessible to youth and to those poor people.

If they can make it looks like going to online or either offline casino became so expensive, maybe it can slowly cuts down the numbers of affected person and it will  not make those poor became more broke in gambling.