It's interesting to watch, how opinions divided: some people butthurt about that fact, some people tell that government will not be able to do that. And noone (except me earlier) trying to think about legitimacy of such action. Casino is robbery in law, meaning, that you're going there and know (if you're not too stupid) that you will lost your money. And casino knows it pretty well. So here is a question: Why government should allow casino to steal big amounts? If people want to be robbed, maybe this will be better to decrease amount of funds that they will lost?
Especially in online casino, where you never know how fair it is.
Topic: Regulations in online Gambling sites - page 9. (Read 1328 times)
I don't think that the high roller would agree to having a cap on gambling or regulating it and besides how would it actually help?
The gambling sites would have a limited plays for each of their user so that would cut down their profit.
And also I think it could be cheated if they would limit the it then the players could create multiple account to bypass the limit and play however they want.
Casinos will moves to gambling heaven country if their country is starting to implement these kind of non sense regulations, if they don't want their people to gamble then they should ban it but they want to have limiting the amount of bets which i going to affect the gambling sites and not going to give any benefits to the people because still people who are supposed to addict will become one. The gambling sites would have a limited plays for each of their user so that would cut down their profit.
And also I think it could be cheated if they would limit the it then the players could create multiple account to bypass the limit and play however they want.
honestly I see many obstacles in this matter of regulating online casinos.
1 - How will governments carry out periodic inspections at online casinos if these online casinos have no physical headquarters?
2 - in case of disputes between the client and the casino, how will governments manage to resolve if cryptocurrencies are not regulated?
1 - How will governments carry out periodic inspections at online casinos if these online casinos have no physical headquarters?
2 - in case of disputes between the client and the casino, how will governments manage to resolve if cryptocurrencies are not regulated?
Things could be easily and efficiently regulated in a decentralized crypto network without the need for centralized governments. I think it's a matter of having the proper rules for the visible/known betting world to stick to, and having good enforcement for rule breakers.
honestly I see many obstacles in this matter of regulating online casinos.
1 - How will governments carry out periodic inspections at online casinos if these online casinos have no physical headquarters?
2 - in case of disputes between the client and the casino, how will governments manage to resolve if cryptocurrencies are not regulated?
1 - How will governments carry out periodic inspections at online casinos if these online casinos have no physical headquarters?
2 - in case of disputes between the client and the casino, how will governments manage to resolve if cryptocurrencies are not regulated?
Agreed. Taking into consideration that is not usual for the government to be pro cryptocurrencies.
I also think that if online casinos will be regulated legally, then crypto casinos would possibly be affected as well.
Keeping in mind that it is not just about mandatory limits but regulations regarding general operations.
I also think that if online casinos will be regulated legally, then crypto casinos would possibly be affected as well.
Keeping in mind that it is not just about mandatory limits but regulations regarding general operations.
I understand your thoughts. And I think that even if the government decided to take position in regulating online casinos, it is not that easy to be able to reach all of these online casinos, especially crypto related.
Of course, with the government regulating online gambling by limiting bets to reduce the number of gambling addicts,
it is a good thing. But this will have an effect on tax revenue, because as a result of this regulation online gambling
income will decrease drastically. Even though the economy is currently in crisis, it should be reviewed in relation to
this online gambling regulation. Because I think it should be the government is thinking of other more effective ways to
deal with gambling addicts.
it is a good thing. But this will have an effect on tax revenue, because as a result of this regulation online gambling
income will decrease drastically. Even though the economy is currently in crisis, it should be reviewed in relation to
this online gambling regulation. Because I think it should be the government is thinking of other more effective ways to
deal with gambling addicts.
I don't think that the high roller would agree to having a cap on gambling or regulating it and besides how would it actually help?
The gambling sites would have a limited plays for each of their user so that would cut down their profit.
And also I think it could be cheated if they would limit the it then the players could create multiple account to bypass the limit and play however they want.
The gambling sites would have a limited plays for each of their user so that would cut down their profit.
And also I think it could be cheated if they would limit the it then the players could create multiple account to bypass the limit and play however they want.
I dont understand why governments want to regulate casino's and gambling site by limiting betting especially when the economy is in critical situation due to businesses closing. In fact i dont understand, why governments still insist on this law when they are trying to revitalized the economy. This is a good move to help people but it's also bad in macroeconomics.
This changes might be boring to some people who don't have any problem regarding about financial status, that can gamble how much they want every single day. I know that gambling sites and government are just trying to limit or prevent everyone's from getting too deep in the abyss of gambling. However, this might backfire to them, they might get bankrupt in worst case scenario because many of their players might lose interest in this changes that are being implemented by both parties (Gambling sites and Government).
In my opinion, the result of this new policies may give other countries ideas on how much money they will put as a limit every single day and depends on a person's financial status background.
In my opinion, the result of this new policies may give other countries ideas on how much money they will put as a limit every single day and depends on a person's financial status background.
Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC?
If that is the case I guess there would be a problem to some crypto gamblers since I know the majority of the gamblers using cryptocurrencies wants themselves to be anonymous or just doesn't want to send their information. I am fine with the cap or the requirement to provve but this is different.
If that is the case I guess there would be a problem to some crypto gamblers since I know the majority of the gamblers using cryptocurrencies wants themselves to be anonymous or just doesn't want to send their information. I am fine with the cap or the requirement to provve but this is different.
If we are talking about the KYC method regulations on gambling, we will have different views by the people all around the internet but we will find the majority will be against this implementation because no one wants to show their true identity just to play gambling online. anyway, in this era of crypto gambling online, we don't see it'll gonna implemented soon since a lot of people will be against it. but we cannot say after they finalized their decision, if that happened, then I guess the market in the online gambling will be greatly subsided.
This seems to be a very rare regulation, I have not heard similar to this regulation before.
Come on, 100£ monthly limit seems not fair for gamblers, why are the government now controlling gamblers when it comes to spending money?
Honestly, I believe if they really care for the people, why not just think of banning gambling than making this kind of very complicated regulation just to give gamblers a chance to gamble at a very low amount. These regulators do not understand the gambling's principle which is "only bet what you can afford to lose", it doesn't state their a specific amount as everyone has different status financially.
Personally, I would disagree with his law.
Come on, 100£ monthly limit seems not fair for gamblers, why are the government now controlling gamblers when it comes to spending money?
Honestly, I believe if they really care for the people, why not just think of banning gambling than making this kind of very complicated regulation just to give gamblers a chance to gamble at a very low amount. These regulators do not understand the gambling's principle which is "only bet what you can afford to lose", it doesn't state their a specific amount as everyone has different status financially.
Personally, I would disagree with his law.
Actually this not a big deal because if ever the player reach the 100$ cap per month then they can just play other gambling games like dice, sportsbet and card games.
Makes sense. Most of the gamblers here doesn't just stick with dice or slots, they have a huge array of games they can play making $100 cap per month not that much. But not most of us can afford to lose that so I guess this might be nothing to some but to some, it is something.
£100 as a monthly cap is really a low limit for those gamblers that are even reaching more than this cap per month. There are good purposes and reasons why they are looking into making this happen.
But for now, let's wait for the future updates.
I guess it may vary from the amount of income you have, and how financially capable a gambler is. Maybe this £100 is for those who barely have a stable income or something since I think they are just trying to prevent gambling addiction. But if a gambler is rich enough to afford more than £100, then they can probably have a bigger monthly cap. But for now, let's wait for the future updates.
At the moment this is just a proposal, who knows what will happen.
They have a good intention about this but for sure, we will see some gamblers and operators who will disagree with this proposal.
It could also mean more business for Bitcoin casinos. Unfortunately, it will also open ways for unknowing UK gamblers to get scammed.
Exactly. This will only lead to the fact that no online casino will apply for a license in the UK. The majority of casinos are already operating on smaller islands with very lax laws around gambling. So I don't really understand the point of the proposal, and in my opinion the "protection" of customers is just as little given as it is now. People who want to avoid the 100 pound limit can do so very easily.
Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC?
The government had long ago agitated for all online gambling casinos to embark on compulsory know your customers(KYC) but some gambling platforms still decline this request and contributed to what has eaten deep into gamblers these days. As per the current regulations from the government, is to ensure gamblers are gambling minimally. Government can enforce this regulations through a minimal deposit from every gambler and not otherwise. 
Does this mean every online casinos would require KYC?
The government had long ago agitated for all online gambling casinos to embark on compulsory know your customers(KYC) but some gambling platforms still decline this request and contributed to what has eaten deep into gamblers these days. As per the current regulations from the government, is to ensure gamblers are gambling minimally. Government can enforce this regulations through a minimal deposit from every gambler and not otherwise. 
But 100£ cap is too low.
For me this is a much better regulation idea. Why? It is simply because it would limit the gambling activities you can do per month and as well as limit how much you can spend on gambling in a month. The fact that most gamblers are often get addicted onto it and spend almost half to even every money or belongings they have (some sells those so they can have money to gamble), it is a better way to eradicate such instances, not for the government, but for the gamblers as well.
You probably referring to the irresponsible gamblers, how about the professional gamblers, their main job is gambling, they can't live with that limitation.
The thing is, the government sees gambling as a business for the operators and just an entertainment to gamblers, they don't consider those people who are serious with their gambling activities.
But 100£ cap is too low.
For me this is a much better regulation idea. Why? It is simply because it would limit the gambling activities you can do per month and as well as limit how much you can spend on gambling in a month. The fact that most gamblers are often get addicted onto it and spend almost half to even every money or belongings they have (some sells those so they can have money to gamble), it is a better way to eradicate such instances, not for the government, but for the gamblers as well.
Regulations are not bad especially if it cannot damage the profit of the casinos owner while protecting the people to become addicted in gambling.
But putting a mandatory limit which is very low is not a good sign also as the casinos owner will be in disadvantage, if it will continue then the casinos will likely to close and stop operating.
As a gambler, I am not against about the regulations as it can also prevent the fake casinos to operate and only the genuine one will be left.
But putting a mandatory limit which is very low is not a good sign also as the casinos owner will be in disadvantage, if it will continue then the casinos will likely to close and stop operating.
As a gambler, I am not against about the regulations as it can also prevent the fake casinos to operate and only the genuine one will be left.
Perhaps, it is not just in the side of the house or casino that will not be in favor since most of the gambler spend lots of time in gambling especially if they don't have anything to do as they just want to have fun.
Mandatory limits should be increase especially depending on the deposit amount of the gambler, and not on how many game he/she could play. Why? a gambler could deposit high and play small amount of game because of his high betting amount, he could also play lots of game if he will reduce his bet amount. What makes it bad is when the gambler is depositing too much to the platform. So it is a good advise to limit deposit in order to discipline the gambler to bet not too much.
Regulations are not bad especially if it cannot damage the profit of the casinos owner while protecting the people to become addicted in gambling.
But putting a mandatory limit which is very low is not a good sign also as the casinos owner will be in disadvantage, if it will continue then the casinos will likely to close and stop operating.
As a gambler, I am not against about the regulations as it can also prevent the fake casinos to operate and only the genuine one will be left.
But putting a mandatory limit which is very low is not a good sign also as the casinos owner will be in disadvantage, if it will continue then the casinos will likely to close and stop operating.
As a gambler, I am not against about the regulations as it can also prevent the fake casinos to operate and only the genuine one will be left.
Jump to: