Topic: You have to prove that you can take the loss - page 13. (Read 1632 times)

They would really need to abide or else they would face up violations and penalties if they would violate such laws or regulation.We do know on what they've been thinking about the risk
on where they do limit such amount in monthly basis but we know that it can easily be hit up even on a part time gambler.

For Vip's or huge spender then casinos will really find a way to retain those players because they do know that it will really be a huge loss of them on losing those players
yet we know on how casinos do make profit.

This new rule or law sucks big time on their part.

Those who'll rush in for the bucks will not be stopped by a £100 gambling limit anyway. They'll seek other ways to get rich out of nothing and fall in the said trap instead, so it's going to have the same (or a possibly even worse) outcome. Some people spend a lot of money on alcohol - should we impose a spending limit per month? Doesn't make sense. We should take care of ourselves.

It is just one of those regulations that makes sense for the people that like to feel better with themselves after passing such law because they think they are doing something for the community, but we know the truth, those that are addicted to gambling are going to find a way around it and most likely cryptocurrencies are going to be part of this, it doesn't really make any sense to me that if you have earned the fiat in your bank account that somehow you are restricted in its use and yet people accept this all the time.

But the casinos has to go through the local government so that they can operate.

So whichever the local govt will instruct them to do so, they'll just have to obey if they want to keep operating. About the high rollers, they certainly want to take care of them, vip treatment and don't want to go to another casino, online or local.

Very well said. Gambling addiction is resulted from irresponsible playing. That is to say, everyone should know there own limits.
Some people are falling deep with gambling and will do anything just to be able to play again and again.
The movement of the government to stop the gambling addiction is good. However, putting regulations to casinos just to control the funds of people is no good.

They might be looking at the risk level, if a person is addicted in gambling, he can lose all his money compared to a person addicted in beer where he can't consume everything he can afford to buy. Also, gambling addiction has a lot of side effects, you could be addicted to liquor or drugs, therefore I understand that government are making measures to minimize addiction, but this specific law I'm against with.

I agree, man. Well laid out. Their idea seemed a bit going overboard, in my opinion. Besides, it will always be the individual's responsbility whether on how much they can spend in such matter. Although, their concern is somehow good (plausible enough, atleast) however I don't think that it is applicable in this case  .

I think that every person who is over 18 years old is responsible for everything he does in his own life. If someone is going to play in any casino, that person must be prepared in case they lose money, nobody goes to the casino just to have wins without losing.

I see many topics talking about gambling addiction, but they forget that many people spend a lot of money on beer, but nobody talks about closing the beer factories, why? because it's not the breweries that are to blame

Based on the other thread it is said that those casinos which are regulated doesn't need to require KYCs for this. They will continue to do the same except for the new thing which is proving themselves within having a loss of $100 or maybe £100. I don't think it would be that big for them to gamble underground.

Expect the Black Market will make a Big Money out of these rules. Ofcourse addicted users will never try to obey the rules, they'll find a way to play over and over again. Besides these kind of rules only works at the start when it's been implemented,... trust me after years of counting, They'll be back to what they've used to.

If such regulations will be implemented to control the gambling addiction, it would be a great help for those gamblers to know their limitations so that they could keep up that playing must be only limited under restrictions. But such rules won't make sense to prove that implementing it will consider gamblers that they could handle their losses because addiction and the way you handle your stressors when it comes to managing your bets and losses is on a psychological manner. The regulation would just make gamblers to control their expenses but still it cannot state that a gambler can prove that he can handle the losses he have taken on playing gambling.

Also, there might be cases that because there are certain rules about limitations, gamblers might broke into managing his emotions for he feels pressure on how he would budget his bets to avoid making up £100 loss to keep on playing gambling. The regulation can have both pros and cons depending on how the gamblers would take it. Therefore, the management and moderation would still rely on the gambler himself.

That's probably what is expected for the gamblers, as in reality, gamblers will always find a way to gamble, and since they can't accept the regulation they will find a way to satisfy their gambling needs, and I think crypto casinos is the best answer to that.

But again it should be a confidential thing, the house, or even the government shouldn't get that information without the gambler's approval. We already know what's the effect and the cause of the addiction and it destroys the person's life. I agree that some want to hide their money spent on the gamblings and addictions shouldn't be the conclusion when someone is continuously losing because sometimes having fun is their only purpose and money isn't their problem.

Regulations can be good, but online gambling shouldn't be overregulated, let alone prohibited. Not all countries have land based casinos, and those that have them, don't have them in all regions. Some people need to blow off a little steam once in a while, and online gambling sites are among perfect places for doing so. The thing is that the so-called "gambling addicts" would not turn into "normal citizens" overnight, if there were no gambling anymore. Rather, they would become drug addicts, alcoholics, dangerous criminals, you name it. When there is a limit on how much can be staked online, it's equivalent to "no gambling" for such people. I would think twice of where it could lead to.

With this kind of proposal, the casino needs to reveals that information once the government ask them.
Though I do agree that it should be the house that supposedly handled this case and start providing such treatments to avoid heavily addictions.

For those unemployed: Do they really make the money we're talking about here? I think in the real sense they don't, rather they lose the more. Hardly for anyone to come empty into the gambling hall and make it out with pleasure. Most of these gamblers go home even more frustrated than before.
Even though the decision by the government will affect her economy, it's better for her citizens to be more safe than getting into gambling addiction.

That's the problem when people got really mentally affected after a huge loss in gambling, you can't fully blame the casino because it is the person's will to have that losses.

Regulation is really required to maintain control and balance between the two variables.

When it comes to gambling, it can really have a huge impact to someone who are not that knowledgeable about the risks of gambling that's why they end up having a miserable life.

Online gambling to become regulated is really a good approach to help gamblers keep on track and control their emotion and have limits to prevent these suicides, mental problems, and addictions. I'm not really a fan of gambling because I'm an investor, although they both have risks, investments are much safer.

Trust me, this is going to add yet another vague clause to casinos' already murky Terms of Service, which already prevents professional gamblers, and asks casinos to help players enforce self-exclusion (tell me which crypto or online casino actually does its best to enforce this). Now players have to prove they're betting money they can afford to lose? I'd be watching all those trading sites first.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to ask people to do that but how can you prove it?

No need to worry. You can still gamble, even if there are regulations in your country because you will get another way to connect to the gambling site, but you need to be careful because the government eyes can watch your step.

The gamblers must handle their losses, and never blame other people because we use our own money to gamble, and we are not being forced by other people to use that money. But no matter if there is a regulation or not, we must control our money and make limitations, so we don't get any problem.

Hi!
First of all, this article is very exclusive and refers to the United Kingdom, that is, its scope is very regional, although not its impact. Another issue is that The Guardian is not, let's say, an expert website on the subject, in fact it focuses on the UK government effect issue, which is where The Guardian has good arguments, but this website is a "todero" of those web portals that They write all kinds of news, but it is certainly one of the best there is and very influential in the UK.
___
The losses of a player should never be measured by an as specific amount (100) , it is the biggest mistake there is and if you are going to legislate on gambling, that it should never be "100" of any currency.

A player's losses are technically measured by his banking (bankroll) ability.
So,let's go to the Topic  that concerns us in this forum, cryptocurrencies, someone can have a $ 1 to bet, the best thing that can happen to a person who likes to bet regardless of the result, is to get to a crypto casino, depending on the casino and of the currency that the casino uses a $ 1 can bring you as much entertainment as $ 100.

-1-There are bets not based on the minimum Fiat decimal that are 2 decimals, you can use up to 8. And depending on the value of the cryptocurrency, the effect of betting for $ 1 can be quite entertaining, therefore if you use $ 100 based on a decimal limit In some shitcoin, your entertainment may be longer than betting on the traditional currency. -one-

If the article did at least an educational technical analysis on the betting methodologies and told me the number 100 comes out here, I would understand that figure.

The ignorance in the evaluative subject from the qualitative point of view of the gamblers is very great only based on the quantitative point.

A number is not the solution, at least not in the background, it is something partial and merely symbolic.

The article also has its hypocrisy, since Uk is the paradise of many professional poker² players (at least in Europe, in many other countries the rules of online casinos are very rigid and require licenses to register even with a web domain extension) , because the issue of profits and restrictions is flexible.
__
I have known of players who manage monthly losses of up to $ 15,000 not because I read it, I have seen it and the ones that are read are six figures or higher are simply amazing.

In the earthly environment that I handle losses of $ 100 they are so trivial that they can be handled in a single bet, or in different times such as minutes, hours, weeks and months, it all depends on the player and their ability to bet, not on a number 100.

That figure is so disconcerting that they tell you how uninformed these people are.


What should be mandatory and not an option is deposit control on any website. At least for periods of hours or minimum limits that can be established from $ 10 in pre-established periods before starting to play.

GB.

---

-1-: This comment refers to those who read us as an informative part, third parties who feel identified with this basic information. It is not directed to the OP or the participants in the topic who have a good command of that information.
(2) Online casino traditional Fiat. Not only high stakes or high income, I have known Spanish players who earned between 800 and 5000 euros per month, some as partial or total income for their livelihood and have moved to the UK due to the issue of taxes and the laws that regulate the flow of players due to the theme of only Spanish players, domain control (e.g.) .es.
P.D: 100 maybe FOTBs