Many gamblers doesn’t use their true identity as they play in gambling because they want a privacy for playing it. Many gamblers are loved in playing gambling because they are free to do everything not knowing their true identity. I am not into self-exclusion because many player are making their dummy accounts. Self exclusion doesn’t help them to fight their gambling addiction I guess it must be fine if they will threat their own self in fighting their addiction.
Topic: Anonymous Gambling and Self Exclusion (Read 374 times)
Many gamblers doesn’t use their true identity as they play in gambling because they want a privacy for playing it. Many gamblers are loved in playing gambling because they are free to do everything not knowing their true identity. I am not into self-exclusion because many player are making their dummy accounts. Self exclusion doesn’t help them to fight their gambling addiction I guess it must be fine if they will threat their own self in fighting their addiction.
Self-exclusion for me is not a bad idea. It is feasible for me if Casinos will implement the exclusion. The players might use secondary accounts to access sites. However, the point here is that they will not be able to use the account they have considered to be excluded. But if self Exclusion could not help their addictions, then they might call the support of the site. It's just that, the site must have proper and responsive support so that people can remove the exclusion right away. Nevertheless, it could help the gambler to at least try to stop their addiction in gambling but not a total solution. In my opinion.
helping to self-exclusion using that method might not be very effective in the long run because if they want to be able to make exceptions or other ways.
so the only effective way you really have to fight your addiction, it is indeed very difficult but once you can defend it, you will have no trouble doing it again even in other thing.
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.
Kudos to themI 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.
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
Self exclusion is useful and the algorithms they made is very essential and will help practice self-discipline. As they are not allowed to overspend their money through this, they can stop and minimize the loss that they are spending so that it will prevent them to have huge losses in their money. Anonymously gambling is the way of other people to have an access in gambling platform so that they will have unlimited spend of their money until they have no money in their wallet. They are very unstoppable that's why verification is useful so that casinos can monitor the decent customer who are legit and those who are anonymously gambling without the regulator's consent. Most of the anonymous are underage and that's inappropriate to see them spending money in gambling instead of some valuable things.
I agree we couldn't really blame the gambling site's because of those carefree gamblers.
It is our responsibility as a person to know our limitation and our obligations.
If someone got addicted to gambling it is their fault they could control their own but they choose to gamble their money anyways.
We don't need to blame the gambling sites if a person is a gambling addict he/she would always find a way to gamble even if it isn't through crypto,
After all offline Casino's also have those kind of gamblers so would you still say that they are to blame?
It is our responsibility as a person to know our limitation and our obligations.
If someone got addicted to gambling it is their fault they could control their own but they choose to gamble their money anyways.
We don't need to blame the gambling sites if a person is a gambling addict he/she would always find a way to gamble even if it isn't through crypto,
After all offline Casino's also have those kind of gamblers so would you still say that they are to blame?
Ignorance is truly a bliss.
So if underage users use an anonymous gambling website - then that website shouldn't be blamed for those "carefree gamblers", right?
If we as human beings can be responsible for all of our actions, then why can't we buy a beer when we're 6 years old, or smoke a cigarette? Why are there limitations in place or in the first place?
After all offline Casino's also have those kind of gamblers so would you still say that they are to blame?
Most OFFLINE casinos or bookmakers as mentioned above have several policies in place, such as age verification, KYC, and even self exclusion.
Most OFFLINE casinos require you to register for the first time before you can even get inside.
The ignorance that is coming out of some posters here is truly remarkable ... why don't you do yourself a favor and save your ridiculous opinion to yourself? It's best if you don't post than post tons of nonsense here.
Underage gamblers being anonymous should be responsible and accountable of their actions if they have been caught playing gambling in a certain website. It is not a gambling casino's fault if they enter the platform anonymously because they aren't easily noticeable when they use another IP and anonymous name. Limitations is very essential and applicable to anything that exists in this world because anything that's too much is bad. You should not be overwhelmed if you're underage and you entered a gambling platform anonymously because there is always a possibility that you will be noticed by the authority. That's why verification is always important so the you will monitor the customers who are entering your platform to prevent issues or trouble.
I think that self exclusion makes the gambling addiction problem makes it worse, with people not admitting that they are gambling will incur a hard to cure addiction, you know that to cure addiction, you first have to admit that you are addicted. This veil that lets you become anonymous will be a bad thing if someday you want to start rehabilitating.
Many of people are attracted towards gambling because of the no-restriction. There are many ways to fight your gambling addiction and a few sites giving an option to self exclusion won't help as people may visit hundreds of sites to drench their thirst. A better way for self exclusion is being involved in a real life self exclusion that a virtual one.
I am a proponent of anonymous gambling without any restrictions as I have traditional gambling sites and real casinos for other options.
I am a proponent of anonymous gambling without any restrictions as I have traditional gambling sites and real casinos for other options.
Reality makes sense than virtual one, in fact, when your addiction became complicated, what you need to do is mee a psychiatrist who is an expert in this kind of thing. He will advise you on what yo do and you need to do exactly what he said if you want to see some changes in your life. Virtual advises can help too when you are not that addicted but if you can't help yourself anymore, it's better to seek treatment outside the computer.
Many gamblers doesn’t use their true identity as they play in gambling because they want a privacy for playing it.
Many gamblers are loved in playing gambling because they are free to do everything not knowing their true identity.
same as what you said above.I am not into self-exclusion because many player are making their dummy accounts. Self exclusion doesn’t help them to fight their gambling addiction I guess it must be fine if they will threat their own self in fighting their addiction.
well addiction is a not a fight of the addict because they don't even care about the future but tbhis is the fight of the people who loves them and people who needs them. 
Many gamblers doesn’t use their true identity as they play in gambling because they want a privacy for playing it. Many gamblers are loved in playing gambling because they are free to do everything not knowing their true identity. I am not into self-exclusion because many player are making their dummy accounts. Self exclusion doesn’t help them to fight their gambling addiction I guess it must be fine if they will threat their own self in fighting their addiction.
Self-exclusion for me is not a bad idea. It is feasible for me if Casinos will implement the exclusion. The players might use secondary accounts to access sites. However, the point here is that they will not be able to use the account they have considered to be excluded. But if self Exclusion could not help their addictions, then they might call the support of the site. It's just that, the site must have proper and responsive support so that people can remove the exclusion right away. Nevertheless, it could help the gambler to at least try to stop their addiction in gambling but not a total solution. In my opinion.
It can help to some extent, but not the answer, a gambler can always find a way to play again, if there is a KYC, he can find a way to pass that by using other people's credentials, they have done it on ICO, so they can also do it in gambling, it can help those who are not addicted to gambling but never compulsive gamblers.
there was a saying " if theres a will theres a way " means that no matter how hard it is , people will always find a way to do it because they are willing . kyc , ip banning, country restriction , etc .. they are still all useless because there are many ways to bypass them all . my friend gambler has self exclude him self recently but i found out that he created a new account and i see the stats of his new account are now getting good ( better than mine ) that means that he isnt sincere of banning himself from gambling . i feel sad for him ;(
All things will depend on yourself and as said if you arent serious on quitting then you would still end up on playing in the end of the day.
Ive seen lots of them which are trying to deny that they arent addicted and even telling to others that they dont need to quit because they can
control themselves until they do mess out their entire life because of it.Self exclusion is totally useless and not really that needed because quitting
would really just depend on a certain gambler.Stopping anytime without hesitation is a must or suggested but majority of those gamblers do fail
even doing this basic thing.Gambling industry is successful and profitable due to this kind of behavior of many.
This can be an issue for those with a known addiction. Now with the introduction of bitcoin and cryptocurrency in gambling it's just too easy to go opev any imposed limitations.
For effective measures, they'd have to be self imposed, but then again, you also know how to solve the locks you set on your own...
I think that when somebody reaches that point, their issue should be treated as a pathological one. Like with alcohol, it's just too easy to avoid any imposed limitations.
Banned at local stores? Drive some more.
Known in your entire region? Drive out of state. Order online, pay some extra etc....
The only way is to understand your addiction and get some help treating it. It's the only solution.
Maybe somebody should set up crypto gamblers anonymous.
For effective measures, they'd have to be self imposed, but then again, you also know how to solve the locks you set on your own...
I think that when somebody reaches that point, their issue should be treated as a pathological one. Like with alcohol, it's just too easy to avoid any imposed limitations.
Banned at local stores? Drive some more.
Known in your entire region? Drive out of state. Order online, pay some extra etc....
The only way is to understand your addiction and get some help treating it. It's the only solution.
Maybe somebody should set up crypto gamblers anonymous.
Self-exclusion for me is not a bad idea. It is feasible for me if Casinos will implement the exclusion. The players might use secondary accounts to access sites. However, the point here is that they will not be able to use the account they have considered to be excluded. But if self Exclusion could not help their addictions, then they might call the support of the site. It's just that, the site must have proper and responsive support so that people can remove the exclusion right away. Nevertheless, it could help the gambler to at least try to stop their addiction in gambling but not a total solution. In my opinion.
It can help to some extent, but not the answer, a gambler can always find a way to play again, if there is a KYC, he can find a way to pass that by using other people's credentials, they have done it on ICO, so they can also do it in gambling, it can help those who are not addicted to gambling but never compulsive gamblers.
there was a saying " if theres a will theres a way " means that no matter how hard it is , people will always find a way to do it because they are willing . kyc , ip banning, country restriction , etc .. they are still all useless because there are many ways to bypass them all . my friend gambler has self exclude him self recently but i found out that he created a new account and i see the stats of his new account are now getting good ( better than mine ) that means that he isnt sincere of banning himself from gambling . i feel sad for him ;(
Why are you bumping 4 month old threads?
I've seen you do this a few times now, are you just a gravedigging moron?
Self-exclusion for me is not a bad idea. It is feasible for me if Casinos will implement the exclusion. The players might use secondary accounts to access sites. However, the point here is that they will not be able to use the account they have considered to be excluded. But if self Exclusion could not help their addictions, then they might call the support of the site. It's just that, the site must have proper and responsive support so that people can remove the exclusion right away. Nevertheless, it could help the gambler to at least try to stop their addiction in gambling but not a total solution. In my opinion.
It can help to some extent, but not the answer, a gambler can always find a way to play again, if there is a KYC, he can find a way to pass that by using other people's credentials, they have done it on ICO, so they can also do it in gambling, it can help those who are not addicted to gambling but never compulsive gamblers.
Self-exclusion for me is not a bad idea. It is feasible for me if Casinos will implement the exclusion. The players might use secondary accounts to access sites. However, the point here is that they will not be able to use the account they have considered to be excluded. But if self Exclusion could not help their addictions, then they might call the support of the site. It's just that, the site must have proper and responsive support so that people can remove the exclusion right away. Nevertheless, it could help the gambler to at least try to stop their addiction in gambling but not a total solution. In my opinion.
Many of people are attracted towards gambling because of the no-restriction. There are many ways to fight your gambling addiction and a few sites giving an option to self exclusion won't help as people may visit hundreds of sites to drench their thirst. A better way for self exclusion is being involved in a real life self exclusion that a virtual one.
I am a proponent of anonymous gambling without any restrictions as I have traditional gambling sites and real casinos for other options.
I am a proponent of anonymous gambling without any restrictions as I have traditional gambling sites and real casinos for other options.
Well, thing isn't limited to one site anymore though, with thousand of sites offering same services, let's say bitsler and primedice are actually the same in everyway, if a person gets successfully banned in a website in such a way that he is not able to open another account, then also with so many options, he will resort to another site! Happened to me too, I blocked myself on bet365 for a week only to gamble on sportsbet.io the next day, when the temptation kicks in, people would eventually find a possibility to gamble xD
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.
On second thought I am thinking of other ways they can be more problems to settle but I think my solution is only applicable to live casino or actual casino's and that solution may be applicable only to few people and not certainly to all,
Well on the other hand online gambling that is anonymous doesn't have any age restriction that certain gambling site does give a thing if they would ruin a minors life by means of addiction, but I guess you are right maybe gambling sites needs to have a restriction regarding the matter and before they would get shut down regarding uncontrollable numbers of addicted.
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.
Yes! this method is surely not applicable to all addicted person but it would only work on a few, and rehabilitation is a certain thing that must do but only if a gambler is voluntarily willing to take a rehab but if not we can really not do something about it,
And well, certain problems with crypto anonymous gambling sites is the age restriction, all can surely play gambling regarding if he has crypto to burn on that site then everyone can sure play, I think this is a huge problem regarding online gambling sites without KYC.
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.
On second thought I am thinking of other ways they can be more problems to settle but I think my solution is only applicable to live casino or actual casino's and that solution may be applicable only to few people and not certainly to all,
Well on the other hand online gambling that is anonymous doesn't have any age restriction that certain gambling site does give a thing if they would ruin a minors life by means of addiction, but I guess you are right maybe gambling sites needs to have a restriction regarding the matter and before they would get shut down regarding uncontrollable numbers of addicted.
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.
Yes! this method is surely not applicable to all addicted person but it would only work on a few, and rehabilitation is a certain thing that must do but only if a gambler is voluntarily willing to take a rehab but if not we can really not do something about it,
And well, certain problems with crypto anonymous gambling sites is the age restriction, all can surely play gambling regarding if he has crypto to burn on that site then everyone can sure play, I think this is a huge problem regarding online gambling sites without KYC.
I agree we couldn't really blame the gambling site's because of those carefree gamblers.
It is our responsibility as a person to know our limitation and our obligations.
If someone got addicted to gambling it is their fault they could control their own but they choose to gamble their money anyways.
We don't need to blame the gambling sites if a person is a gambling addict he/she would always find a way to gamble even if it isn't through crypto,
After all offline Casino's also have those kind of gamblers so would you still say that they are to blame?
It is our responsibility as a person to know our limitation and our obligations.
If someone got addicted to gambling it is their fault they could control their own but they choose to gamble their money anyways.
We don't need to blame the gambling sites if a person is a gambling addict he/she would always find a way to gamble even if it isn't through crypto,
After all offline Casino's also have those kind of gamblers so would you still say that they are to blame?
Ignorance is truly a bliss.
So if underage users use an anonymous gambling website - then that website shouldn't be blamed for those "carefree gamblers", right?
If we as human beings can be responsible for all of our actions, then why can't we buy a beer when we're 6 years old, or smoke a cigarette? Why are there limitations in place or in the first place?
After all offline Casino's also have those kind of gamblers so would you still say that they are to blame?
Most OFFLINE casinos or bookmakers as mentioned above have several policies in place, such as age verification, KYC, and even self exclusion.
Most OFFLINE casinos require you to register for the first time before you can even get inside.
The ignorance that is coming out of some posters here is truly remarkable ... why don't you do yourself a favor and save your ridiculous opinion to yourself? It's best if you don't post than post tons of nonsense here.
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.
I agree we couldn't really blame the gambling site's because of those carefree gamblers.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.
It is our responsibility as a person to know our limitation and our obligations.
If someone got addicted to gambling it is their fault they could control their own but they choose to gamble their money anyways.
We don't need to blame the gambling sites if a person is a gambling addict he/she would always find a way to gamble even if it isn't through crypto,
After all offline Casino's also have those kind of gamblers so would you still say that they are to blame?
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I have never been that much of a fan of "self exclusion"
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I kind of agree with them taking self-exclusion more seriously since sometimes gamblers need to be forcefully stopped from gambling.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.
but why would the gambling site face responsibility on something out of their control?
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.
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.
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.
Kudos to themI 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.
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.
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.
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.
Jump to: