—
Responsible gambling should always be encouraged and we’re lucky enough to have many tools helping us achieve this goal. The UK Gambling Commission has come up with countless regulations over the last decade to restrict the gambling industry and give players more ways of curbing their betting habits.
This includes setting deposit limits, letting you control your session times on gambling websites, etc. One of the biggest developments was the creation of a scheme called GamStop. It encourages self-exclusion by letting players sign up and be excluded/banned from every site that participates with GamStop. On the surface this sounds like an amazing beneficial tool – but when does self-exclusion stop being helpful and start becoming a problem?
The Bad Side Of Self-Exclusion – Restrictions Encourage Reckless Behaviour
Someone with a gambling problem can exclude themselves from many websites for a few weeks or months and have lots of time to recover. At its core, that’s the main function of GamStop. It provides breathing space while removing a potential trigger or temptation for the individual.
That’s brilliant – but here’s where things start going wrong.
When someone joins a self-exclusion scheme like GamStop, they’re automatically banned from thousands of websites for a minimum of 6 months. This can extend to 7 years if the person forgets to cancel GamStop at the end of their initial self-exclusion period. You might not see this as a problem, but factor in that you cannot cancel a GamStop exclusion until it runs out. This means you’re dealing with 6 months of being banned at a minimum or 7+ years max.
The problem here is that players lose control. They are now forced to serve a self-exclusion, despite getting their wits together a couple of months into things. Maybe they learned how to gamble responsibly and wish to place some casual bets with friends. A self-exclusion prevents this. In turn, the player becomes increasingly frustrated and looks for ways around their exclusion.
If they’re clever and do their due diligence, they’ll join safe websites – like these UK casinos not on GamStop via CasinoGam.uk. But, if they’re acting recklessly and feel annoyed, they can easily find black market sites and put themselves at risk.
And therein lies the problem with self-exclusions – it can push people to the edge and encourage bad decisions. Instead of gambling responsibly at legitimate sites, they feel forced to seek out others that could be illegitimate and full of scams.
How Can Self-Exclusions Be Made Better
GamStop and other self-exclusion schemes are hugely valuable and there’s no way we’d suggest getting rid of them. But let’s not act like they’re 100% perfect. When used in the right ways, they’re powerful. The issue is that it’s too easy for someone to grow frustrated on a self-exclusion scheme and attempt to find alternative unsafe websites.
Here are two things we think will make the whole self-exclusion system better:
- Reduce the minimum exclusion period
- Introduce player reviews
Reducing the minimum exclusion period makes self-exclusion less restrictive
We understand that self-exclusion is supposed to be somewhat restrictive, but having a minimum period of 6 months is a lot for some people. Many of the people using self-exclusion schemes might need a brief time away from gambling to get their heads straight. Maybe they’ve realised they’re spending too much money or becoming dependent on gambling and want to change things. For some, a month or two away is enough to develop better habits and find a more responsible relationship with gambling.
When you’re forced to exclude for 6 months it makes you want to do either of these things:
- Not exclude and make the problem worse
- Exclude but seek out other ways of gambling that might be dangerous
Having a 1-month minimum exclusion still provides restriction but in a more manageable and sustainable way for everyone. If you’re still not in the right place at the end, you can also keep extending it by a month, two months, etc.
Introducing player reviews adds flexibility to self-exclusions
Being stuck on a self-exclusion scheme for years on end is like living in an unhappy marriage. You want to leave but your partner won’t let you. It doesn’t make for a great relationship, which is why many self-excluding players go down dark rabbit holes and stumble upon bad online gambling platforms.
Introducing player reviews can stop this.
We’re not talking about player reviews of casinos or betting sites, but rather a review of the players themselves. It’s almost like a test – the self-exclusion scheme can ask the player questions and assess their behaviour to see if they’re ready to leave the scheme. If someone clearly shows the ability to bet responsibly, they can leave before their exclusion period is over.
Additionally, once an exclusion finishes, a review can be conducted to see if the individual needs to remain excluded or can choose to leave. You could also introduce the idea of trial periods while the player is under review – they can join online sites, but their accounts are flagged by the systems and their behaviour is watched carefully. If they exhibit signs of problem gambling, the self-exclusion comes back into place.
These ideas cover up many of the holes self-exclusion schemes bring. They’ll also encourage responsible gambling as players need to pass their reviews. Right now, players grow frustrated by the rigidity of a self-exclusion particularly after they feel like they’ve “served their time” and feel better about their gambling habits. What started as a good thing quickly turns sour – but it doesn’t have to be this way. Hopefully, new ideas like ours will be considered so individuals have more control and can exclude with fewer issues.
—
