The exclusion feature have a loophole (my opinion).

[goldkingcoiner]

We have already discussed some topics related to self exclusion service of casinos, however there's a new discovery I just noticed about some casinos. Amongs the casinos that have self exclusion features, some of them permits players to be able to set self exclusion and also be able to cancel it, while based on the rules of some casinos, a player can actually apply to revoke their exclusion.

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

Strange. How is it even a self exclusion if you can take it back? Sounds like a marketing scheme rather than serious user harm reduction.

The best anti-gambling effect would be to make it as difficult as possible for the person to take back their self-exclusion. That way they would mostly give up before trying to resume gambling at said casino due to how irritating the cancellation attempt is in the first place.

That would save a lot of gambling addicts from themselves. Just my two cents.

[Taricoins]

I don't think that it's possible for you to revoke self exclusion and cancel it when your choose time haven't elapsed. There's no features like that and I haven't seen any. The only thing I know is that, after the expiration date of your self exclusion that's when you can start gambling again. You cannot revoke it earlier than the initial time. Maybe, you can tell me the casino that one can revoke self exclusion when it hasn't expired.

Not to throw shade but you are talking like you know all the gambling or casino platform, well if you know, i stand to be corrected but the platform the OP is using has that feature so we can't be assertive until we know that platform he is using.

If what you are saying OP is true, I don't think there is any point for the self exclusion feature anymore, unless there is other restrictions or penalty ascribed to revoking your self exclusion.

[lodocus]

The self-exclusion feature is designed to protect you from yourself. When you activate this feature while you’re in your right mind, you should be unable to gamble in any way until the specified time period expires. Otherwise, it would be no different from simply logging out of your account to avoid gambling. The point here is that if you suddenly feel the urge to gamble, the casino should not allow it.

[KiaKia]

We have already discussed some topics related to self exclusion service of casinos, however there's a new discovery I just noticed about some casinos. Amongs the casinos that have self exclusion features, some of them permits players to be able to set self exclusion and also be able to cancel it, while based on the rules of some casinos, a player can actually apply to revoke their exclusion.

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

You are speaking fact, someone who struggles to control themselves can't keep self exclusion active, sooner or later they might deactivate it, people who lacks self control don't know how to stick with a decision, they love bouncing around.

They can promise to never gamble again right now and in the next few days they will feel like they are missing out already, lack of self control is something that one needs to fix by themselves, not relying on some platforms or website.

[iv4n]

The exclusion feature have a loophole (my opinion).

Self-exclusion is a loophole. It gives an illusion of control, but in reality it deceives people into thinking they have solved a problem by blocking one door out of thousands... You can frame it another way, but I guess you understand the point.

The only real self-exclusion is in our heads/minds... No casino feature or regulation can force someone to stop gambling if they don't really want to stop! I guess people like to lie to themselves, and this tool is perfect for them... and for scammers who look for loopholes and try to profit from them.

Self-exclusion can be good for "already responsible gamblers" who want to stop gambling in some casino (for all sorts of reasons). They are not running away from addiction, they are just controlling where they spend money. And that's different... in my opinion.

The self-exclusion feature is designed to protect you from yourself.

And what are you going to do then? Just move the accountability to a feature, and that will solve everything? Who needs self-control, discipline... when we can use some app or a feature for that?

If a decision is not made in your own head, no app or feature is gonna save you from yourself. And that's the "self-exclusion loophole...

[m2017]

We have already discussed some topics related to self exclusion service of casinos, however there's a new discovery I just noticed about some casinos. Amongs the casinos that have self exclusion features, some of them permits players to be able to set self exclusion and also be able to cancel it, while based on the rules of some casinos, a player can actually apply to revoke their exclusion.

Casinos left this loophole for themselves so they wouldn't lose their customers forever.

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

As far as I’ve heard, that used to be the case in some offline casinos, but lately there’s been a trend where the "exclusion–cancellation–exclusion–cancellation" routine isn't quite so easy to pull off anymore.

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due.

I wouldn't say it's exactly the same at every casino, but judging by conversations with friends who frequent offline casinos, those who have voluntarily excluded themselves now have to wait for the ban period to expire.

Incidentally, that is precisely how it works in certain U.S. states, such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Nevada.

Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

Harsh for whom? For the casino? Yes, because the casino loses a customer for the entire duration of the self-exclusion feature. For the gambler? I believe this is exactly what is needed to prevent a gambler from acting impulsively - deciding to revoke the self-exclusion and return to the casino. As I mentioned, such strict self-exclusion rules are in place only at certain casinos (or in specific countries and regions), not universally. From the perspective of gambler welfare, casinos should be universally required to implement these strict rules that make it impossible to revoke self-exclusion early. Then again, nothing stops a gambler from self-excluding for a short period, say 30 days and then extending it for another 30 days, and so on, rather than opting for a one-year exclusion feature right away (which they would almost certainly try to cancel before the term expired).

[ruykeri]

Well if I may say a gambler being able to cancel a self exclusion feature anytime is kinda absurd. Basically it kinda defeats the whole purpose. it's more like locking a door only to keep the keys in the lock. I believe most casinos do this because they believe players could possibly decide to come back, so yeah it's their way of running their business because they don't want to lose their players to other platforms that have less demanding rules. But still I'm sure it does occur to them that by doing so, they are risking the safety of the platforms. Well they have their reasons though, but the best case scenario is to probably just leave the self exclusion until the time is fully up....That's all.......

Those who are addicted to gambling can start betting on other Casino sites even after self-exclusion, if that particular Casino site does not allow betting on that Casino site again after exclusion. I personally bet on two sites. I sports betting on a site, and sometimes I bet on Casino games on another site. In my case if I turn on Self-Exclusion on the site where I do my sports betting, then if I want to bet again, I will try to bet on sports on the Crypto Casino site where I bet on Casino games. So I don't think it will be possible to keep an addicted person completely away from gambling by turning on Self-Exclusion only on Casino. So I think gamblers should keep control over themselves. Then the chances of getting addicted will be less.

[Mrbluntzy]

Too harsh  

Yes, it will have an effect on the casino in respect to losing customers. The casino will not reject revoking self exclusion, if they do so, players will move to another casino.

That's not being harsh, the real purpose of this service is to prevent addicted players for the period of time they have agreed to stay away from gambling but if they can be allowed to remove it at any time, then the purpose of introductiing the service has already become a joke. Although, the self exclusion service does not still prevent some people from playing which was same thing I said before, some compulsive players will still register in other casino to continue playing and they might not get caught but that's a different case as long as the operators does  not allow them to cancel the self exclusion before the expiry date.

[vincentixz]

i agree that self-exclusion shouldn't be something you can cancel whenever you feel like playing again. the whole point is to give yourself a break and avoid making impulsive decisions. letting people revoke it after just a few days kind of defeats that purpose. having to wait until the chosen period ends seems like a reasonable rule to me.

[gracreavix]

Right from time, that feature was just trash to me. There are people in the first place that can't even control themselves. Then casino's saw this and thought they could help. Which is good. But on helping, every casino's didnt come together to enact one rule as regarding self exclusion.

Every one of them have their own rules and how it should be done. Which is not bad. Now the only problem with this is that, if I do self exclusion on this platform, I am still free to open another account in another platform. By so doing, making the feature absolute waste of time.

You can't self exclude from one and still have access to many. So what's now the essence of self exclusion in the first place. That's just waste.

[Zlantann]

You are speaking fact, someone who struggles to control themselves can't keep self exclusion active, sooner or later they might deactivate it, people who lacks self control don't know how to stick with a decision, they love bouncing around.

They can promise to never gamble again right now and in the next few days they will feel like they are missing out already, lack of self control is something that one needs to fix by themselves, not relying on some platforms or website.

This type of self-exclusion can be reversed at any time and might not achieve the goal of the concept. It's like someone going through rehabilitation instructing the professionals when he wants to stop medication or support. 

The casinos that have this option are simply offering self-exclusion option for formality. Maybe they just want to satisfy regulatory requirements. They don't really want to offer help but doing it to avoid sanctions from the government.

[Josefjix]

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

I wouldn't also like it if the casino provide the button to cancel self exclusion feature, when the main aim of that that feature is to regulate players vulnerability of playing too much. It makes no sense for an addict to cancel, enable self exclusion, cancel again and so forth.

That could means that the casino doesn't care about player's addictive vulnerability, and infact, casino should be able to notice player's moves whenever they are doing too much and then auto stop them by putting them into restrictions for a while.

They won't because they are actively looking for profits from vulnerable players.

[Charles-Tim]

I wouldn't also like it if the casino provide the button to cancel self exclusion feature, when the main aim of that that feature is to regulate players vulnerability of playing too much. It makes no sense for an addict to cancel, enable self exclusion, cancel again and so forth.

That means it is not self-exclusion at all. Such gambling site will sooner or later be sued unless it is called another thing that is not self-exclusion.

That could means that the casino doesn't care about player's addictive vulnerability, and infact, casino should be able to notice player's moves whenever they are doing too much and then auto stop them by putting them into restrictions for a while.

The truth is that most gambling sites do not care about their customers. What they care about is for their customers to be sending money to their gambling account. It is regulations that still make the gambling sites have self-exclusion.

[Mr_Brilliant$]

The self-exclusion feature is designed to protect you from yourself. When you activate this feature while you’re in your right mind, you should be unable to gamble in any way until the specified time period expires. Otherwise, it would be no different from simply logging out of your account to avoid gambling. The point here is that if you suddenly feel the urge to gamble, the casino should not allow it.

You didn't address the core issue of the Op, but you're still on point. I love how to buttress on how the self exclusion helps. But the OP was after the loopholes it created whereby anyone can cancel their self exclusion as some casino's made it so.

If a person can cancel what can in turn help him with ease, then that feature for me is as good as dead already. It isn't supposed to be a feature in a casino if it doesn't address the core issue a gambler is trying to prevent. And that is what the OP was after.

If only a regulatry body of all casinos should enforce the self exclusion properly, then the feature will serve it's original purpose. But for now, those casino's who allow self exclusion to be cancelled anyhow are just playing.

[AVE5]

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

I don't find any problem about that at all. Either appealing to the company before you gain access to gamble in that same platform after filling for exclusion and using the platforms self exclusion cancel feature is the same thing.
Addicted gamblers who at their best known reasons that excludes themselves from gambling will always fall back to the game at any means while those who're in control of their emotions doesn't even need to be self excluded before they can keep to their word's or disciplined.
Some self exclusion supporting casinos also has has bots that automatically automatically attend to the appeal of self exclusion user's in quick response giving the user also an easy way to return back as much easily as those casinos that has the exclusion canceling feature.

[Versatile_choice]

The self-exclusion feature is designed to protect you from yourself. When you activate this feature while you’re in your right mind, you should be unable to gamble in any way until the specified time period expires. Otherwise, it would be no different from simply logging out of your account to avoid gambling. The point here is that if you suddenly feel the urge to gamble, the casino should not allow it.

I could remember the first time I used this self exclusion feature, at first I thought it's just a normal break that you take and then stay as much as you like and then come back to reach out to the customer service to end the self exclusion break but Nah.  I came back when the self exclusion session is still on and then I try to make a bet but it didn't work then I thought the customer service could help me fix it but they couldn't, then I realized that the self exclusion feature can't be undo not until the exclusion period is over. Truly the self exclusion feature has been very helpful, if other gamblers does not find it helpful personally it has been very helpful to me.

[Miles2006]

Self exclusion should be seen as a ban, the shortest period I have seen is one year self exclusion limit aside the one year I don’t consider any exclusion plan to be that short. If I may ask what exactly is the plan, for any casino allowing the gambler to access the site back should not implement self exclusion because it’s totally a waste of time.
So many debate about self exclusion recently, this seems to be surprising allowing a player to get back after self exclusion, the feature self exclusion is introduced to gamblers who cannot control their gambling habit and they end up betting more than their limit, if the news is true then self exclusion has lost its credibility.

[Grace333]

This has been a loophole for the longest and a lot of players have noticed it, there is no point in freezing in account if you can still havw access to it after chatting up customer service, It's almost like the exclusion feature has no point of being there. When a gambler closes an account I think that the system should be designed in such a way that the players would no longer have access if they try to reopen their account.

[Nwada001]

I was thinking that the best option would be to not allow a player to revoke their self exclusion until the period they set is due. Would that mean that the casinos are being too harsh or would that have any effect on the casino? Your opinion is needed.

The heavy loophole in self-exclusion is not just with this option you mentioned, although I have not seen it active in any casino I use, but the real loophole is with the same player who applies for self-exclusion in one casino can move to another casino and start gambling over theirs.

I’m among many who see the self-exclusion feature in the casino as something that really doesn't have much effect unless the player decides and is determined not to gamble again; they will always look for a way to bypass it.

[BALIK]

If it's really that easy to cancel self exclusion, then I think there's no need to even have it as a feature, because a player can exclude themselves today and still cancel it after few days or weeks later. What do you think?

Yes, it is 100% pointless!

When any gambler activate self exclusion whether driven by emotion and realization following heavy loss, they are in rational state of mind. However, if urge to gamble resurface few days later and casino allows them to cancel exclusion with just single click and message to support, very purpose of feature is defeated.

Currently top tier regulated casino such as those under UKGC or Malta Gaming Authority and service like GamStop enforce rule ensuring that access cannot be regained before set period such as six month or year has expired. Even when attempting to reopen account after term ends, we are required to observe mandatory cooling off period of 24 to 48 hour. This is designed to prevent player from impulsively jumping back into game. But many unregulated casino maintain this loophole to retain player deposit.