Topic: Income statement: can it be used to mitigate huge losses due to addiction. (Read 427 times)

it gives their users free will they are basically saying that since they have warned them it is up to them what they do with their products or services

i think a warning is also what the casinos can do at most and they are putting the entire responsibility on to their clients it gives enough freedom but also make sure that they will not compromise their profit i mean we all know everyone just ignores those warnings

Income statement:
First of all letst understand what is the income statement is "An income statement, also known as a profit and loss (P&L) statement, is a financial report that shows a company's revenue, expenses, and profitability over a specific period of time" - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/incomestatement.asp

can it be used to mitigate huge losses due to addiction. The answer probably yes but since gambling have 50.50 chance I believe the P&L for most user is at negative result unless after winning big the amount of your withdraw is greater than the amount of your deposit and never touch gambling again

I don't thinks that the gambling companies wants to deter the growing rate of gambling addiction among online gamblers. Their focus is to make a big profit from gambling industry and not thinks about other things such as gambling addiction. Well, they can thinks about doing charity for some of their profit but not with gambling addiction among online gamblers. They consider every gamblers knows the risks of playing gambling and gamblers have their responsibilities when playing gambling.

Online casino serves for income statement of every gamblers in their account so gamblers and casino can see how much money they already use and how much money they wins. But that will not be a reason for online casino to deter their members from playing gambling in their site. After all, online casino already gives the options to excluded gamblers from playing gambling for some time so gamblers must use this if they realizes they becomes gambling addiction. That can prevents gamblers from keeps playing gambling and reduce their gambling activity so they can solve their gambling addiction.

When you say decrease the gambling rate, I think that sounds that a gambler will now stop gambling permanently, but I think having an income statement doesn't do that to them, instead it might only help them to be a responsible gambler. Casinos have it already because they can show our losses and wins when we go to our stat page, but if we want to, we can also record a separate one. I prefer this because I think I can customize it freely and then I can be able to access it easily.

This sounds harsh. Sure they want to earn money because they are still a business after all but they don't say what you are saying in public. They still care about their customers in fact. One proof is them having an income statement. Another would be, is they have a warning sign about gambling. That is only two but there are still more to that.

What do you mean by Authority here? Do the gambling sites themselves analysis this data or do they hand it over to some "authority" who will determine the gambling limits for individual gambler?

No one would want their gambling data to be given to any third party for analysis. Secondly the gambling sites won't care much about how much money a gambler is losing over the time as the money lost by the gambler is a profit for a casino. Yeah, the gambling sites may be concerned on how much money a gambler has won over a period of time.

I think it is the responsibility of the gambler to impose such restrictions on himself as how much he can gamble daily or weekly. Others won't do this task for them especially when it directly contradicts their interest.

You are correct. This is what OP posted about. Which is not possible because gambling sites see themselves as competitors and will not have anything to do with each other. Only what could make this happen are the regulators but we can see how the gambling regulations have been so far which is not in favour of this but not about this at all but more in favour of paying taxes. If there is any regulation like this, most gambling sites will not be happy about it at all.

No that's not what the op is about, with what I understand about the topic. The op is about how gambling sites can work together with the regulators through the use of KYC to regulate what gamblers can spend on gambling using their income statement as a determinant.

Thoughtfully, no casino would want to implement this because it's bad business for them. It will impact negatively on their profits. Even let say the casinos would want to comply, some addicted gamblers would find ways to maneuver the process since there are many casinos they can gamble with.

It won't in any way help eradicate gambling addiction, in fact, it won't even reduce the number of gamblers in the first place, and this is because today, we have several great decentralized casinos that are completely non kyc complaint, that is, this casinos don't require gamblers to pass any kyc verification, the gambler can just connect their wallet to the smart contract and viola, they can playing their favorite game and betting any amount of money they want.

If government should implement such rule as you have stated, it only will help push more and much more gamblers into playing on decentralized casinos, as I personally believe that no very many online gamblers have income statement in tbt first place.

I think I agree with what you said for this, because it will only deplete the freedom of gamblers to spend money as we wish, but maybe it will also have a good impact if the government knows how much money is spent by the public in gambling so that they can make gambling play fair and help a little not to gamble addictively, the report is very useful.

But so far I don't know the government's actions regarding the reduction of addiction through casinos, I also don't know how the government controls it with casinos I think they don't care how much gambling addicts spend in casinos, they only care about the taxes that the government has set on casinos to benefit the country, they also don't care how hard we work to earn money, I don't think they care that much to suppress addiction that may arise in the community.

The OP suggestion is different because it gives moderation already to the players unlike cigarettes ads that only show bad effects which doesn’t limit directly all the users to use cigarettes.

Implementing this suggestion will surely decrease the gambling activity of players since they don’t have a choice rather than to follow the limit which is given to them. This method is a good solution but I wonder if casino will do this to lessen their profit from players.

Gambling is specifically for 18+, and it is assumed that any kid that is up to or above the age of 18 is no longer a kid but can take some valid decisions for themselves, even in the aspect of financial decision-making. What you are suggesting cannot be enforced because the casino owners don't even care about that. The casino owners want their customers to gamble continuously with a lot of money because they will definitely end up losing more than the profit they will make. The authorities don't also give a fuck about this because they don't compel anyone to gamble. For the sake of freedom, this law cannot be enforced. 

Does anyone care about online casinos that they will think about heavily addicted users? I don't think so, the addiction still has to be self-aware then the casino won't do anything.

The problem now is that KYC is only needed if there are constraints about financial issues of cheating maybe the so-called large withdrawals, prohibited IP and many more cases while for profit loss reports of addicted users the casino will not identify more details even they don't care.

I don't think something like that would happen or be allowed to happen in any Western country which already has an important gambling market, to be honest.
People who are consider themselves to be dedicated gamblers and casual gamblers do not like to have the use of their money limited or seized by authorities, and there is a good reason for it. People work very hard to keep their income and have some of spare money to buy whatever they want, so within the perception of personal freedom is fair to assume each one of us is supposed to be free to spend as we like, as long as we are not doing any harm to anyone else.

It would be the equivalent of limiting smokers on how much they can smoke, we all know such measure could help to improve health in general, but it would set a bad precedent on liberty and  the role of the state and our income. Everyone has the "right" to smoke or gamble within the capacity of their pockets, right?

I doubt that any casino is worried about the gambling addiction of its players. Yes, sometimes it can freeze accounts, but this happens at the request of the players themselves. This means that the person himself is interested in stopping the games, but not the casino: the more players, the more successful the business. And agreeing to such conditions is like cutting off your profitable hand.

I don't think this has a big effect, even though there are some casinos that require customers to fulfill the KYC provided by the casino, of course they will fulfill it because what they want is victory even though it is difficult to obtain, also sometimes there are casinos that at the beginning of registration they do not provide KYC requirements but when the customer manages to get a big win and withdraw it and then there the casino provides KYC which must be fulfilled by the customer as a condition for being able to withdraw the winnings, of course the customer will do it, there is no way the customer will just leave his winnings right?
In addition, the number of casinos currently in circulation certainly does not reduce the chances of those who want to gamble, even if they are lazy about KYC matters, I think what they will do is look for other casinos that do not provide requirements to fulfill KYC, when someone already wants to gamble it is unlikely that they can stop if they cannot control themselves properly, especially with those who have the thought that they can win at gambling.

With this increasing level of addiction, I doubt that the existence of KYC can reduce the level of addiction, there is a compulsion that pushes themselves to meet KYC requirements like this and makes them not easily switch their minds with gambling that they already want to do, besides that with the current development that is increasing this makes it easy for them to access many casinos and look for casinos that do not provide KYC requirements.

It can really help to decrease the gambling rate. But I hardly think that any casinos will be in support of this. The main motive of casinos is to increase the gambling bets in their casino and wants people to lose money; hence, why will they support something like this, which will decrease their profits? If also the government forces to apply this, then the casinos will allow multiple accounts from the gamblers and will advise them to deposit in another account if the other accounts get limited. But yes, it can really reduce the gambling rate addiction if implemented in a proper, transparent manner.

Gambling companies can not stops people from gambling addiction. If people can not avoids that they will becomes addicted to gambling. People needs to know how to use gambling properly as an entertainment so they will not gets addicted to gambling. If people know that playing gambling can cause to be gambling addicted, they will not trying to gambling too often and will manage their time and money.

Casino only asks for KYC verification but to avoids gambling addiction will be people's responsibility because they comes to casino to playing gambling. They must know how to playing gambling moderately and only use gambling for have fun. That will helps them to prevents addicted to gambling.

Too much work. I don't think they will agree with it. Online gambling sites only want us to gamble and regarding "Gambling responsibly" that's on us.

Well, they did make some features where we could limit ourselves so that we won't be betting more.
Here is what Stake.com has.
https://stake.com/responsible-gambling/gambling-limits


You could use that setting so that you won't be gambling excessively and whenever you lose the amount you input there will be a cooldown before you can add more or even if you change it, there's a cooldown again.
It's there because your suggestion might not work out as it also poses a threat to privacy. The statement of income is not something you will just share with anyone so it's better if your privacy is intact.

I also don't think many will agree with that condition just to avoid gambling addiction. KYC is already a hard decision for them, what more with an important file.

That will never work because this measure is not attacking the underlying problem, since what is stopping an addicted gambler to use different casinos to gamble all their money away?

And even if the unrealistic proposal of some people I have seen online became true, in which casinos shared the information of all their clients, especially the ones with gambling issues, then that person will gamble offline their money anyway, so this will not be anywhere enough to stop an addicted gambler to lose all their money.

Questions are, would the gamblers be willing to show their income statement? Also would all gambling site be taking the initiative to do so? 'coz it would mean lower income on their end if they will limit the amount gamblers would be engaging to their platform. Yes I do understand that this would make gambling industry "healthier" but adjustments should be done by players and not the platforms simply because they are literally just minding their business. It is us gamblers who should be responsible of our betting habits. We should be establishing the initiative and discipline to ourselves given that it is us who would be prone to gambling addiction and not the providers. Yes it would be appreciated if platforms would do so but just a bit unfair on their end, I guess, or at least for me.