Topic: Ban from a Casino for Nothing Other Than Winning Too Much Money (Read 930 times)

These orchestrate bans sends a strong and clear message that the casinos were not established in our best interest so therefore as a gambler just come play constantly lose your money amidst having fun and walk home smiling for your loss. They could have taken the option of considering to limit his bets but limiting his bet won't still put the casino on the winning side every penny is significant for business and this know that's why the ban. But this isn't right all, does it mean that if casinos can make it possible that gamblers don't ever get a single  win in all the times they play, they can do it. So our winnings irritate them but our constant losses doesn't, so what's the balance there if this be the case that I should just be constantly losing as a gambler?

If all casinos start limiting bonuses, it will confuse gamblers because many gamblers still expect them, and bonuses keep gamblers returning to their casinos. And no matter if they still experience losses that may be even more frequent, they will still return to the casino to get another bonus. And it is normal to see that many gamblers are still trying to catch bonuses from casinos, especially if the bonuses are given at an event.

But you are right that casinos are not friends and are a place to have fun by gambling. They are still trying to chase victory even though they know it is wrong but they think they still have a little luck to win in the next round. But they were wrong. Luck can go away immediately after they win. Therefore, we must know ourselves and stop gambling before everything changes.

If it limits gamblers from winning, it means that we are not allowed to chase winnings because when we have won, we must immediately stop so as not to be subject to any bans from the casino. We already know that getting a win is difficult so we shouldn't force ourselves to chase that win again. It's enough for us to win whatever the winning amount is and we can still gamble again another day so we can win again another day. Maybe after we win and stop gambling, we can move to another casino to continue gambling, but that is not recommended because we could lose the money we have earned. And we should take a break to reduce the tension.

And that means we have to be responsible when gambling so we don't overdo it. We should gamble to get entertainment rather than to chase victory because that will cause us to experience many losses. We won't realize how much money we spend because we keep playing to chase that win.

For top gamblers, who are more experienced than most gamblers, they have their own way of limiting themselves. Maybe we think they have lost a lot of money because we see the amount of money they use for gambling, but that's not the case in their opinion because they are used to using that much money for gambling. And they also know how to treat gambling properly because it is gambling where there are bound to be winners and losers so they just gamble until it is enough for them.

Casinos don't want to see gamblers they don't know win regularly and the casinos will do something about it. We can try to imagine we are the owners and see the reality that way. We definitely don't want to see such a sight and we may start monitoring the gambler or even throw him out of our place so that he doesn't win again and again.

In general, casinos do limit bets, as they don't have an infinite bankroll. In the case you described, the individual is a high roller, placing substantial bets and consistently winning, so he was banned. It was actually Dana White, the President and CEO of UFC.


If casinos are wealthy, and gamblers like Dana White, who consistently earns a substantial income in his business, can easily risk millions of dollars, it becomes painful for the casino when they lose. While banning him is probably not the right approach, limiting his bets may be considered. The question is, would that satisfy Dana White?

Dana White net worth in 2023 is $500, 000,000.. he is a rich guy.

https://www.essentiallysports.com/tag/dana-white/

Well it's really hard to believed that someone will be ban, unless that is one famous player that exploited the system of the casino. Like Ivey,


https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/25107-poker-legend-phil-ivey-settles-10-1-million-lawsuit-with-borgata

But that is a rare cash for a player to beat the casinos in their own game and it has consequences, like being used and then they are obviously going to be ban on that casino itself. And who knows, if you are ban in one casino, you could also be ban on others

I don’t get it; the gambler won’t win constinuously ‘coz that’s impossible. Also, no matter how big a gambler would wage, a single player’s bet (considering that it is city’s best casino) won’t be enough to cause trouble with the overall bankroll. Maybe this is just an isolated case and others won’t do the same thing.There are other ways to resolve this than to immediately ban a player. Gambling platforms should love players who stake high ‘coz they’d earn from him.If these casinos would continue doing this, then they shouldn’t be in line with the “best” ‘coz they are not having the right bankroll distribution which threatens them of bankruptcy. Problem is not with the gambler but the casino itself.

Well, this is nothing new if you ask me, this is something majorly any casino will do to any gambler who the casino discover to be staking high and constantly wining, though there are still some casinos that won't outrightly ban the gambler, but they will limit the gambler in some games which they discover that the gambler is always wining on.

The latter above I personally think is a better approach than outrighly and complately banning the gambler, I personally have seen a case where a gambler was always winning on a particular sports betting on stake, he was betting really high and constantly winning high amount of money, at a point, stake had to limit the gambler to a maximum of $5 per bet (if i still remember well) on that particular sports game, this simply means that, he can not bet more than $5 on games on that particular sports, if he wants to bet more or higher, then he has to try betting on other types of sports or possibly play other games like casino games or slot games.

Why do you think so? If the math works correctly, then the casino on average always has the same amount of profit as a percentage of turnover. Moreover, the existence of large winnings for some players is an inevitable pattern - among tens of thousands of gamblers who try hundreds of thousands of times, someone must be very lucky, this is the law of large numbers. I don't see any point in banning these lucky ones.

At least there are people who can still beat the casinos to their own games, since the casino are know to be built to favour them only which less down 10% of their customers are the ones winning and the rest 90% are likely to be the one losing and those lose are the casino own winning.

This guy might have figure out how to beat this casinos and the casino won’t like that at all, and the only thing that they can do to the guy is to ban and restrict him from using their service for life, if it’s some casino they could have not also allowed him to withdraw some of his last winnings which could have been way worst than it is right now.

He can always go to other casino and continue his gambling life as he appear to be a VIP gambler and many casino will be happy to have him until they see the amount of winning he actually wins daily then maybe those ones can also give him their own kind of restriction.

I do think that the casino has the right to ban anyone for whatever purpose they may deemed so. But before they ban such person, they must also have a reason for doing such since if they exercise this power, they run the risk of ruining their reputation in seconds.

In the given story provided by OP, Dana White is known to be a high stakes player. Since he is the owner of UFC and he has boat loads of cash in his disposal, he can gamble away millions of dollars like he is just buying candy at a store. Of course, gambling contains the risks of two (2) parties- the player; and the owner of the casino.

While Dana White may have lost some money in the process, he still has won some money in which the casino deemed it necessary for him to be prohibited to enter their establishment.

Those impressions would totally changed on the time that they have seen that the player that they had just simply let to go on is really making some huge haul into their profits
and this is the time that treatment would really be that suddenly changed which it do really sucks specially if you've been playing on the platform for too long or simply having that loyalty but just because of that being that lucky or profitable then all of those things do really changed up on point. Well, you could really easily make switch in between places knowing that they are really just that almost the same, they do only differ on UI/UX but when it comes to offering then it would really be just that the same. Loyalty somehow doesnt really fit on this industry because someone could easily switch up if ever they would really be experiencing some issues. If that things happen on me then i would just simply skip into other places and play and apply that being too lucky and wrecked
up their bankroll. LOL!

That's their way of stopping a player, when you are profitable and they don't see you stopping anytime soon then they have to take action because you might disrupt the business or contribute to their further losses. This only gives the idea that no matter how good you are, they are still a business after all. Anything that can be threatening to their business, they need to act on it before it does the damage entirely. Well, it might not matter to them if you're just winning with a couple of bucks and they will allow you to keep going. I haven't been into that situation so I can't say a lot but those that I've read gives the thought on how it feels on their end that they're disappointed and being a loyal gambler to those particular casinos lost their trust on them just because of that. They're right with that feeling and as like a fan of those casinos, they should be taken well but it's the opposite that's given to them when they're just too lucky to win for so many tmes and with such huge amounts.

Is it worth it? No its not. If they do have those gamblers who do make out some huge wins on a scenario on which it is way more than could be seen into those other places then they would really be making out such exposure or would really be some additional marketing or awareness into the public but is it really worth? pretty sure it wouldnt because the number of revenue or profits that they are making is really not that enough
on the people who do keeps playing on the site. It is really that hard to believe that codes or simply those maths would be broken on which it would really be giving out that odds or chance for it players to have its advantage. We do know on whats the truth and how it do operates but if everything is really just that fine and really that in line but still there's some people who do able to manage to win up
consecutively then it would really be that not shocking or something normal that they would really be banning to those who do constantly win.

Its true that it wont really be that good to hear off that a certain platform or place does really ban out people just they do make out some winning. This is really that a shady part of them
on which you cant really be that so confident or really that assure that you would get paid up on the time that you do able to make some good big hit.
Therefore, it does have that cons whenever they do make out such decision.

I was always surprised by such things - did they really think that he was a fraudster or that the mathematics broke down on him personally and the casino ceased to have an advantage? It seems to me that, on the contrary, it is beneficial for the casino when some media person wins a lot - after all, a lot of people find out about it and the casino receives additional advertising. And vice versa, after such news, I will not visit casinos about which I heard that they ban the lucky ones.

Banning people because of too much winning in gambling is absolutely not right and shouldn't be the best available option for Casino companies. The truth is that a lot of people have studied and mastered the result of some casino games and are very good in rightly predicting the outcome of games which makes them serial winners. So the best thing for Casino companies to do is to limit individuals from winning past a certain amount of money in a particular period of time instead of total ban.

Probably for some regular gamblers, limiting their gambling bets is okay but for high rollers like Dana White, I guess it won't work for him since he is used to bet exceedingly large amount as this could be the best way so he can also gain huge winning amount if ever. But knowing gambling casinos have set their own rules that would retain their bankroll security, so it's either Dana White will leave the gambling casino or he'll just follow the order so he can still continue to bet even if it only means winning small amounts, and losing minimal amount at some point as well.

This scenario is actually not new for everyone. When you are really a threat to every casino's business, expect that they will soon to regulate your gambling activities or nevertheless ban your presence from playing inside their casino.

Not surprising actually because if you've been winning all the time or something that we could say that you are indeed profitable then this would really be raising up those alarms and this is indeed the time that you would really be that most likely being blocked or would be banned or prohibited to play again on the platform and since they are doing business and you are the ones who do rips those money or revenue that they are making then its not a shocking thing that they would really be getting rid of you later on. hehehe. Winning money or games into their platform on severe manner or comes into a point that you are making huge money then you would really become a pest into their site.So dont get shocked on the time that you would get banned or cant access your account later on.
Asking why? then you wont really be that so dumb on not to know on whats the actual reason behind.So on the time that you would be making out some complaints then the house would really be giving you some non so convincing reasons on why you have been banned. Trying out to whine out publicly? People would really be just basically be telling you with those obvious reasons but of course
it would really be affecting a platforms reputation and this is why it would really be still that a long discussion.

That's how they put someone down when they see that they're being taken down through winning most of the time. There are casinos that won't ban such guy even if winning consistently on their casino is done. What they'll do is flag that guy with a limitation and could lessen the perks given to him. Like the rewards or bonuses that they're typically giving away to all of their customers but for some reason, they'll limit that lucky guy.

So with those changes, it's like a discouragement that a change has been made to that guy even if it's not that much for him to consider. The guy will think that he's been monitored and that could give him low self-esteem and will eventually loose his interest in that casino. Usually, if the changes are good enough and we're enjoying it positively, we won't be thinking of transferring to another one.
But if it's like a perk that we enjoy or that change is certainly negatively for the account, you'll mostly think that you're not prioritized and even given less privilege which means to say that you're not being taken cared of and in result, you'll find another place to gamble.

Yes, I totally agree with you on what you just said above, as instead of casino banning users, limiting how much they are likely to win should have been a better option, so as not to go bankrupt due to lack of proper management of inflow & outflow of funds, example, in a scenario whereby such individual happens to have a consistent straight winning. Because I have been a witness to such limitation on a new launched local Sport booker which had to limit it's winning potential simply because they were new into the business, and as such had to start low and than start increasing as the casino grows.

It's nothing new. The main point of a casino is not to create winners, but to create a balance between the winners and the losers so the business model stays afloat. With people like Dana White deviating from the system and taking in more than they put out, the business will one day fall if left unchecked so as a business that's just doing what you need to do to remain operational, you'd need to make these types of players stop from playing one way or another. Turns out the best way to do so is to actually ban them from playing in your place, and that's just what they did.

Also to add to this, it's also worth noting that people like Dana White who are clearly on a different class of play ruin the game for those who are just in it for fun. Imagine you're de-stressing and you got Dana White at the other side of the table raking all the chips just cause you're not as skilled as him, that would massively suck. 

This depends on the casino and as we see there are still casinos who didn't put a ban on the guy. Casino has the right to do what they want so even though it's annoying, I can't do anything but to accept their decisions. The guy seem to be very lucky to win that often because I don't think a skill alone can make that possible.

With all the money that he made, maybe he can now play for fun or with lower stakes. That way casino won't feel pressured about him which can result for him to get banned later on. This wasn't the first case that I've heard but others are only about sports betting. I'm not worried though, since I'm not that lucky in any types of gambling .