Topic: Transparency of nationally licenced casinos - page 3. (Read 489 times)

The OP didn't attach a research or study which affirms that national licensing agencies don't pay much attention to the fairness and transparency of games. This might be true in developing nations because they are more interested in means to increase government revenues. In my country, I have never heard of a casino being sanctioned for unfairness but they have been fined for tax evasion and other financial crime. This is because my country is developing.

But in advanced nations, I think they will have a more professional and comprehensive outlook on gambling games to ascertain if they are in line with regulations. Some of the heads of these regulatory bodies might be former gambling platform operators or owners will vast knowledge of the industry.

We cannot certainly say that offshore licenses or national bodies are more transparent because there are both good and bad actors in the industry.

Most of the crypto casino I know from the forum have Curacao license which doesn't mean they can't operate in other regions unless the government explicitly put restrictions. And having license is not really a protection against anything even the provable fairness, it lies in the hands of the casino itself who decides how they are going to operate their games which will attract users as long as they are operating fairly.

Income statements are a measure of protection against compulsive and pathological gambling.

If your income is x amount of money per month, it's reasonable based on your income statement to not let you gamble let's say more than 20% of X in any given month.
In the UK it's quite a prevalent preventative measure that most gamblers have to endure because the government mandates operators to enforce it in order to keep their license.

But really I'm trying to highlight this point as the start difference between what the government considers "transparency" and what the player wants.

The government wants income statements of the players and detailed record keeping of how much everyone gambled so they can tax them.

But players want to know the RTP and the house edge. As well as know that they can bet with provable fairness. Governments have never cared to implement provable fairness. They only care to profit for themselves through players losing money. Whereas players want to know they're not being cheated. It's interesting to observe these antithetical interests here.

What kind of security? Have you seen someone that won in a land based casino and being followed by people that attacked him and almost killed him. I read such news in 2024. Also if you are gambling, online casino is private than land based casinos.

I do not also agree that people gamble most on land based casinos. People gamble most on online casinos.

I do not also agree with the withdrawal. There are online casinos that withdrawal is very fast. Withdrawal on Livecasino.io and Stake.com are very fast.

The regulator’s role in monitoring casinos is vital because weak monitoring leads to weak protection for gamblers. However, based on what I know, particularly about the gambling industry in the Philippines, it’s clear that there are gaps in oversight. Take POGOas an example, they are government-regulated, yet many crimes have occurred within their operations that the regulators failed to catch.

When regulators were called into the Senate, they admitted that their oversight functions are very limited. This makes me think that regulators often aren’t proactive. Their security measures might only be activated in during legal processes, where they already have evidence to penalize casinos for violations like cheating gamblers or failing to follow rules and guidelines.

But honestly, it seems like the primary purpose of regulation isn’t really about protecting gamblers but it’s more about ensuring taxes are collected.

Most of those reasons are  lying in the plane of taxation. Government in the most countries regard casinos as the source for pumping up the budget and if it wasn't for this factor they would touch them tough and probably nuke many of them. Nevertheless I would prefer to cope with licensed  casinos rather than those ones that are relevant to illegal activities and fly-by-night business. Everything may happen with my money and licensed rules to given casino ^{should they be violated}  might come in handy one day.

Frankly, regulation is collectively weak in the gambling industry, if I should be pointing out faults, I might just be starting even at the 10th point. This is also applicable in the top-world countries where other countries are looking as role models, it's not until they change the narrative before we experience changes that will be balanced and not the present ones that are bookies partial.

I believe the government are engrossed with only two things; Taxation and Security, but neglects the protection of the masses which they govern upon. Bookies' offerings should be visited and anomalies should be cancelled. Proper monitoring of the services is also necessary.

Besides of don't have money to go to physical casinos, they also think the acceptance of gambling in their country. That makes them use online casino to gambling so they don't have to go to physical casino to gamble. But if in their country, gambling is prohibit, the only way they can play gambling is by using the online casino.

With the popularity of crypto, people can use crypto casino to gambling and they can withdraw the money faster than transfer their wins money to their bank account. Not to mention what their bank or government will do if they withdraw a lot of money from casino to their bank account. That will sound the alarms of the bank and the government so they will check and investigates the account. If their country prohibits gambling, surely those people will gets a warning from their bank and the government. But if they use crypto casino, they can transfer their win money to their private wallet which is more safe to keeps the money.

I think the idea of casino income statements, may be based on a lot of assumptions that casinos are often the target of money laundering because of the large volume of cash transactions, so that with the existence of profit and loss statements and suspicious transaction reporting, of course corruption authorities can monitor casino financial activity and detect patterns that may indicate money laundering, although it may seem more relevant to do.  But I think that actually it is also not effective to prevent money laundering.
I personally very rarely hear of casinos or officials who are involved  has arrested in casinos, because they are considered to money laundering actions, I think those who supervise corruption also commit corruption, so that cats and mice only take care of each other for their own safety.

To be honest, I don't understand the purpose of the income statement requirement. In order to prevent money laundering, such a measure will not help in any way. In addition, for money laundering, the casino must be "pocket" or affiliated. The income statement is a measure to control expenses. However, the principle of cost control, primarily applies to government officials, and not to the first person you meet who enters the casino. Because cost control is an anti-corruption measure. Therefore, the connection of the casino with the control of expenses of an ordinary person is unclear to me. Or maybe I got something wrong?

You are right in what you are saying dude, before there were many people who did not have the capability to go to physical casinos even if they wanted to go but they still could not because usually physical casinos have membership card requirements so often the only ones who can go are those in the middle class gamblers.

But it is different these days, because casino owners themselves have approached everyone through online casinos, and it really started during the pandemic because all physical casinos were shut down. Now, in crypto gambling the usual things happen is that some do not require kyc although others do. Even until now many people still gamble via online.

I believe that most people have used physical casinos because of the issue of security and speed when withdrawing winnings if they manage to win a lot of money and also because they can play while interacting with other people physically. I think that playing in a physical casino is very good compared to playing in an online casino, even if they say that the RTP of physical casinos is more disadvantageous compared to that of online casinos, still the fact that people can play while interacting with other people is a good thing that would make them not change physical casinos. But not everyone has the money to go to physical casinos, that's why they use online casinos.

KYC goes against everything that crypto was supposed to stand for, but now we see the adapt or die mentality when it comes to casinos because it basically is comply with the government or be shut down. Sure they could operate for a few months and get away with it, but eventually will be pressured by their license provider and the government.

The players are mostly on board, but I think a high % disagree with the process. A lot would prefer the anonymous factor to come back into play.

National licensing bodies for gambling games seem to be focused on certain aspects of gambling that might seem very peculiar to a regular gambler that has gotten accustomed to gambling online with crypto over the past few years.

For instance, government licensing bodies may be focusing on income statements for "protection" or taxation.
This is a very stark contrast to what standards the crypto gambling industry holds itself up to.

It's interesting to observe that while crypto casinos avoid placing any limits on gambling such as requiring income statements or taxing profits... They are holding themselves to very high standards by implementing provable fairness on their original games and many even going as far as to publish the RTP of their slots games.

Bricks and mortar casinos these days are featuring e-slots and many e-games versions such as blackjack, roulette etc. but almost never are transparent with the odds. And the same goes with many nationally licensed online casinos too. The only provably fair game online casinos will have is Crash, and that's even IF they are running it under the proper license and not just stealing the concept without authorization.

Statistically speaking, most gamblers these days play on casinos licensed by their country's government for many reasons.
But in terms of transparency, crypto casinos that usually are licensed under more permissive offshore licenses (or maybe not even licensed at all) have standards of transparency that are much higher.