How effective is self-exclusion in online casinos based on real user experiences?

Hej allihopa,

Jag är nyfiken på hur självavstängning fungerar i praktiken på olika onlinekasinon.

För er som har erfarenhet av detta, tyckte ni att det var effektivt? Var det lätt att installera, och blockerade det faktiskt ytterligare åtkomst helt, eller uppstod några kryphål?

Jag är mer intresserad av verkliga användarupplevelser än teori, eftersom jag antar att implementeringen av detta i praktiken kan variera avsevärt mellan plattformar.

Tack på förhand för att ni delar era åsikter.

Hello,

Fair enough, I will leave this one post and hope to see other players sharing their practical experiences with you.

Tack för att du lämnade detta ämne.

Fungerar sådana mekanismer faktiskt som förväntat, enligt din erfarenhet?

Jag skulle gärna vilja läsa era åsikter.

Self-exclusion doesn't work everywhere.

The problem is that many casinos either don’t respond at all at first or drag their feet unnecessarily. And even if you manage to self-exclude, you can reopen your account at 90% of casinos by sending a message via live chat.

Aside from the fact that an account closed due to gambling addiction shouldn’t be reopened anyway, accounts closed for other reasons should only be reopened after an additional cooling-off period—for example, a 7-day waiting period—following which you must confirm the account reopening. Because very few players want to wait seven days. Anyone who really wants to have their account reactivated and is willing to wait seven days is likely to be more aware of their responsibilities.

However, if a casino reopens the account via email or a message in live chat, this does the player no good at all.

You raise a fair point, especially regarding how easily some casinos allow accounts to be reopened.

At the same time, this also shows one of the biggest problems with responsible gambling systems today: there is no truly global self-exclusion solution covering all casinos, licenses, operators, or jurisdictions.

Even casino groups can be inconsistent. Some apply exclusions across all their brands, while others do so only partially or not at all. Because of this, many players incorrectly assume they are protected more broadly than they actually are.

As a result, players struggling with gambling addiction often have to rely not only on operator protections, but also on personal barriers and external support tools.

Unfortunately, many player experiences suggest that responsible gambling measures are still not enforced as consistently or as effectively as players would expect.

That's all true.

But I think it's pretty difficult to find a universal solution, even though that would be nice.

Unfortunately, there's almost always a way to get around it, whether through new licenses, new casino groups, or similar means.

That's why casinos, at the very least, should do their part and close accounts based on sound player protection me

Thats exactly it, because in the end of the day, there is no universal solution. 🙁 And even if it sounds direct, players must rely more on themselves than ever. To me, it seems like the scissors have never been that open. Maybe I am wrong, but even my colleagues have noticed a steeply increased amount of complaints focused on problem gambling. In my opinion there is a trend.

Many players have their opinions on what casinos should do to protect them, but as discussed here, there are sadly no complex guides for any occasions; therefore, such expectations may also be harmful, just like a failed self-exclusion procedure for example.