selvudelukkelse og spillerbeskyttelse

Hej,

Jeg ville være meget interesseret i at høre, hvordan du og Casino Guru ser på denne sag.

Hvad synes du om en spiller, der sender en anmodning om selvudelukkelse til et casino og eksplicit angiver, at han lider af ludomani og ønsker sin konto permanent lukket? Casinoet efterkommer denne anmodning og lukker kontoen.

Men hvis spilleren senere beslutter sig for at genåbne kontoen, har casinoet så lov til at acceptere dette eller ej?

Hvis casinoet rent faktisk genåbner kontoen, og spilleren efterfølgende klager, kan casinoet så blot forsvare sig ved at hævde, at spilleren anmodede om genåbningen og måske endda har bekræftet med en kort besked, at alt er under kontrol, som beskrevet i casinoets vilkår og betingelser? Kan casinoet derved fritage sig for ethvert ansvar og hævde ikke at have gjort noget forkert?

Jeg ville være meget interesseret i din mening om dette.

Tak!

Hello, let me say that we have been witnessing reopened once-closed accounts across many platforms. To me, it seems like quite a trend. 🙁

From what you shared, however, I understand it's a pressing matter and I appreciate your willingness to talk about problem gambling openly.

Just yesterday we were discussing how many unresolved complaints about self-exclusion failures are now needed to lower the overall casino safety index or whether a specific warning would better help vulnerable players...

It's a huge topic, and I personally do not like the direction those operators are taking. On the other hand, it's still fair to respect that more details will surely be discussed in your complaint, in which the casino also has neutral space for explaining such action. I'm trying to say that it's too early to judge right now.

I still prefer to adhere to the logic underlying the proper self-exclusion setup for gambling addiction. That should result in the player's account being closed permanently, because admitting addiction and clearly requesting account closure due to gambling addiction is not the same as requesting a temporary closure. No retention or persuasion should take place.

Hej Radka,

Jeg er glad for, at vi deler den samme mening. Jeg har lidt betydelige tab på grund af gambling. Desværre er det meget svært at beskytte sig selv med online casinoer, da det er så nemt at åbne en ny konto på et andet casino.

Derudover kan konti, der er blevet blokeret eller permanent lukket på grund af ludomani, nu genåbnes inden for få minutter efter anmodning.

Spillere, der lider af ludomani, vil lukke deres konti efter tab. Men så snart de har penge igen, vil mange forsøge at genåbne kontoen for at fortsætte med at spille. Efter min mening, og jeg taler åbent ud fra min egen erfaring, fordi jeg har gjort dette mange gange, eller rettere sagt, forsøgt at lukke og derefter genåbne konti, bør casinoet gribe ind i sådanne tilfælde for at beskytte spilleren og sige: "Nej, vi vil ikke genåbne en konto, der blev lukket på grund af ludomani."

I stedet genåbnes sådanne konti ofte inden for få minutter, hvilket giver spilleren mulighed for at fortsætte med at spille med det samme.

Jeg vil dog være fair og sige, at der stadig er casinoer, der ikke tillader åbning af en lukket konto på grund af ludomani; meget få, men nogle gør.

Hi there,

First of all, let me say that I really empathize with you. I haven't been completely there, but I do have some experience I'm not actually proud of .

For the struggling person, the current state of the industry poses a real and never-ending sort of trouble, in my opinion. Just as you said, there are some casinos that still respect the basic safety measure, which includes no way of reopening a closed account once the addiction was clearly the case. But it seems to be getting further from the standard, and based on what I've seen over the last few months, the signs are not very promising. We could talk for hours or even days about what should work better, but in the end the final effort lies heavily on the operators too. That's perhaps the actual weakest spot. 🙁

I’m looking for real experiences from people who went through Stake’s Return-to-Play review after an indefinite self-exclusion.

My first reactivation request, submitted after the initial 6-month waiting period, was denied. Support told me I can apply again after another 6 months.

Has anyone been in a similar situation and eventually had their account reactivated after a later review?

I’m also wondering whether the information you provide in your Return-to-Play request makes a difference. My first request was very brief and didn’t really explain my situation or what had changed since my self-exclusion.

I’d really appreciate hearing about your experience. Thanks!

Hello, I replied to you in the other thread where another player also reached out to you.

The decision to self-exclude is often made during a clear moment, but that clarity doesn't always last. If a casino can reopen the account after a simple request, it feels like the whole purpose of permanent self-exclusion is weakened. I understand that adults are responsible for their own choices, but if someone specifically asked to be permanently excluded because of gambling addiction, I think that decision should be respected even when they later change their mind. Otherwise, it's hard to call it a real protection measure.