Topic: Anonymous Gambling and Self Exclusion - page 2. (Read 374 times)

The main reason why that underlying problems keep on happening, that's because a gambler has no will to change himself. Limiting ourselves is really a good advice, and I don't think it was really effective on addicted person because that was not easy for them to let go of that bondage. That needs self reflection and serious rehabilitation before a person would face his struggles of avoiding gambling activities.
There's many diversions that needs to be observed for a long period of time, it can sports or spending times with friends and relatives. This process may took several times to correct those problems behind.

Most governments in the world don't agree with you.
The biggest names in the industry such as Pinnacle, BetFair, William Hill, Ladbrokes, Paddy Power, Coral, Bwin and more - also don't act based on your advice.

Likewise the consumption of alcoholic beverages is limited to only 18+ years in many countries (if not 21+ in other locations!)

Gambling in many countries is limited to a certain age - where anonymous gambling doesn't adhere to that guideline neither (hint: thus there is going to be a huge crackdown on several websites soon, others will follow suit once the punishment will be quite severe, this won't be a few hundreds or a few thousands - millions are going to be seized).

Underage gambling is a problem that is not even discussed here, and I'm sure some of the posters here will "ignore" it because according to them - the goal is to make as much money as possible "and screw all the rest".

Well, society doesn't work like this - if you think the situation is going to continue like this then you're living in an illusion, there is already a huge investigation going on and it's only a matter of time before several Crypto Anonymous Gambling sites will get shut down, and to be honest - I won't shed a single tear when this would happen.

Maybe it's because you are an owner of a website or a gambling establishment, so you don't seem to like it?!

I'm still waiting for an answer - if Pinnacle, one of the giant sports betting websites in the entire world, has introduced a self-exclusion policy - why would they limit losing players? Why won't they maximize profits from losing players and remove the self-exclusion feature from their site?

If you can't answer that question then you are either ignorant or playing yourself ignorant, I am not sure which option is more suitable for someone like you, but I'm definitely disgusted by your attitude.

For gambling owners to make a feature that will allow their gamblers to limit their gambling or to limit their money on betting for a day I think it would likely shrinking their ability to use more than a limit of money can be bothersome to them, in my opinion, they will surely limit certain income, I think the issue of addiction can be settled with the person who is addicted by gambling and not the gambling site, but again it can be done but I think it will work if the gambling site will surely comply if they want to lessen their income in the process.

I think this problem can be taken care of by the relatives of the gambler or the gambler themselves as a gambler I am just limiting my games or bets and the money I will be using for that day I think that would surely lessen the number of losing you can make.

I have a friend that is heavily addicted to gambling. And you are right. because of all the anonymous platforms it is very easy for him to keep gambling. He has a self exclusion on practically every available fiat gambling platform but he can just keep playing whenever he wants.

I also like the idea of anonymous gambling but to solve the self exclusion issue there will need to be some kyc procedure on every anonymous crypto gambling site. But for me that's not an issue. However I am a huge fan of crypto I rather do my gambling on regulated fiat platforms. I know if there goes something wrong on one of those sites they will do anything to solve it. but if there is an issue on a crypto platform (which happens a lot) you have nothing except an email and support chat to address your issue to.

I rather deposit 10k on a site like pokerstars, Betfair or bet365 than depositing 500$ on an anonymous crypto platform. I did that once cause it was cool being able to bet anonymous. But after winning 3,000$ in BTC they requested verification and I needed to pass kyc anyway. So in my opinion crypto gambling isn't that anonymous as people claim cause with any issue or big win they request verification and thats when all issues begin. I read multiple stories of players got their accounts frozen or thousands of dollar confiscated by the side, or about players not receiving winnings after a big hit but only receive their initial stake back. However I had to pass kyc verification on al fiat rooms... I don't care.... if I win big I know 100% sure I will receive my money.

And I agree with you that in near feature there will explode a bomb in the anonymous crypto gambling industry. I am pretty sure lots of governments will try to take them down one by one if they do not agree to get themselves fully regulated.

I have never been that much of a fan of "self exclusion" rules in casinos and what people impose on casinos. If you are a person that can't stop from gambling that means you should see a professional about it and try to stop, casinos do not have the responsibility to make you stop. If one casino stops you and excludes you because you wanted it, an addict could either have another account or just go play somewhere else as long as they don't stop themselves.

Casinos are there to make money, maybe it is not "ethical" for your standards to make money from an addict but if the addict wants to lose their money in casino then casino should be happy to have his money. Is it immoral? Maybe. Is it good business model? Definitely. Does mcdonalds stop selling burgers to fat people? No.

Here are few other suggestions:

1) Same IP cannot be used to create more than 1 account.
2) User should be allowed to sign up only once. Future registrations can risk the user to forfeit his balance.
3) Self-Exclusion feature must be offered to all users.
4) From time to time KYC needs to be done in order to ensure there isn't any money laundering as well as ensure a self-excluded user is blocked and was already KYCed etc.

I think that many well known casinos let you create a pin that once you enter it and decide that you want to not play for 6 months,no matter what you do next you can’t access the casino anymore for at least 6 months.I think this is the best option a casino can offer to its users.

There were many cases in the past of self exclusion violations where the casino/bookmaker was held liable for violating self-exclusion. It's regulatory requirement to have in many jurisdictions, and it's likewise a moral obligation of any high reputable website to offer - for instance if you use Pinnacle, one of the greatest and biggest bookmakers in the world - you would notice this:



If Pinnacle's goal is to simply maximize revenue - then why are they offering this feature?!

This feature is being offered because some addicts find it difficult to stop, in the UK there is a new feature called "Gamstop" - According to Gamstop - Source:

https://www.gamstop.co.uk/

The purpose of Gamstop (i.e. self-exclusion) is to let you put controls in place to restrict your online gambling activities.

Whilst I appreciate you underestimate this - I already mentioned that this needs to be reviewed legally, against those who are offering anonymous gambling to vulnerable players, I highly doubt any judge with basic common sense will rule like the absurd utterly rubbish you mentioned in your post.

The thing is though, how is self exclusion going to work with an anonymous site?

You can already request on the majority of sites for your account to be suspended voluntarily, I think. But what good does that do when you can come back to the same site under a different name and/or sign up to a multitude of other dice sites that offer the same product/service?

It seems quite infeasible to me and is one of the fundamental flaws that has to be accepted with crypto gambling. Legal suits seem even more unlikely given that a lot of these casinos are incorporated overseas in havens, or even not at all.

Actually, this should be their main focus to stop those gamblers who are more addicted to gambling which is not really good not only to them but also to their family.

I think it is because only the site can limit their users, they are the only one who has the capability to do it.

I only seen a "Self Exclusion" with nitrogen sports but I am not using the site anymore.

I tried that before when I keep losing in dice and made my account self excluded to play on dice only and I focus on sports.
But then, I realize its not as effective as I thought as the real decision still comes from me and like you said, in anonymous gambling its easy to create an account again or even create in different gambling sites.

Therefore "Self Exclusion" is not effective in anonymous gambling, we just need to be discipline so we can avoid unnecessary loses.

They did that because they want to make money from the addicted gamblers, and they don't think that the user needs to be limited. They are free to make secondary accounts in that gambling site so they can use it to gamble with another coin. And that will be the responsibility of the addicted gambler not to get deeper on that gambling site, and they need to limit themselves. But unfortunately, the addicted gambler doesn't know that, and they still trying to register with the new account and use the other coin to gamble.

Kudos to them

I kind of agree with them taking self-exclusion more seriously since sometimes gamblers need to be forcefully stopped from gambling.
but why would the gambling site face responsibility on something out of their control?

You have explained it long enough. Pardon me if I didn't get your whole or main point but I guess you do not blame the site for trying to make as much money as possible. That is their main purpose, after all.

An online casino or sports betting site is spending a big slice of their income for marketing. That marketing is done primarily to attract gamblers. The more gamblers the better because that would mean higher income. So why would a site include a feature that would permanently exclude a user? That is contrary to their main objective.

Now, would you fault the site for the addiction of a particular user? I don't think so. Would you fault the site for someone who missed his responsibilities in work, class, family, and so on because he indulged himself too much of it? I don't think so. In gambling, it is more of the gambler's responsibility to instill self-control and discipline to himself rather than the casino's. A reminder for responsible gambling is enough for the latter.

Before Bitcoin became popular, the way to deposit funds in a gambling site was more common via Credit or Debit card, bank transfer, and even Skrill and Netelelr - all these payment methods required some verification, mainly to ensure that the payer is making a genuine payment and not a fraudulent one, but also for regulatory reasons such as money laundering.

With Bitcoin - everything has changed - no longer there is a need to verify the payment is genuine, because once the Bitcoin transaction (deposit or withdrawal) is confirmed in the Bitcoin network you know 100% it's irreversible, and the payer cannot call his bank asking to reverse or chargeback that transaction, because that's the nature of Bitcoin - it's a one way payment that once confirmed it's 100% irreversible.

Now whilst this makes life easier for many gambling establishments (i.e. no need to ask the user to send utility bills, proof of ID, verify the documents etc. etc.) - it still poses a huge problem to those having a gambling addiction problem, and let me explain:

1) In the past those who wanted to self-exclude themselves from a certain website - could have done so by contacting the website itself.
2) One the self-exclusion was in place the user couldn't create a 2nd account in that site because his details such as Date of Birth, Name, Address etc. were all already saved in the website database.
3) Even if the user would have tried to circumvent the exclusion - it would be very hard, because he would have to use a payment method under his name, so sooner or later he will get caught and might even get penalized (by waiting or paying %) for getting his deposits back.
4) But the bottom line is simple - the self exclusion in the old traditional betting sites was VERY EFFECTIVE.

Today, with the anonymous gambling feature - everything has changed.

Now you can create an account at sites such as Nitrogen, Fairlay, Sportsbet, and even if you self-exclude you could easily open a 2nd account (btw Fairlay has no self-exclusion feature at all, none whatsoever) - and if you are a losing bettor - then why would the site you're using ask you for documents? They are all proud of having anonymous gambling.

So without even getting into the issue of money laundering - the risk posed to gambling addicts who want to stop - is in some way unfair and unscrupulous.

I have created a thread about this about almost a year ago:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nitrogensportseu-betbitcom-no-sense-of-responsible-gambling-5079626

Many comments were in some way hostile for not liking the idea of regulating the anonymous gambling industry or however you want to call it. The feedback from BetBit.com for instance was good one (post #39) - they actually did implement a self-exclusion feature in their site and have used a few more algorithms to protect the addicts from overspending in their site - however unfortunately most sites still prefer to keep the issue swept under the rug.

I think it's time betting websites will take the issue of self-exclusion more seriously or alternatively face legal issues from class action lawsuits that gamblers can file against those sites in the short or long term.