Self-exclusion programs are designed to promote responsible gambling, providing a way for players to voluntarily remove themselves from online gambling as a way to deal with problematic behaviour. In fact, it can be a very effective tool for the highly motivated who incorporate it into a wider plan to control gambling. 

But self-exclusion schemes are far from foolproof, and the fact remains that research on the effectiveness of these programs has been slow to catch up, leaving experts wondering if the practice actually inadvertently creates safety risks in the long run. As such, it’s important to understand the potential drawbacks of agreeing to a long-term ban.

Creates a False Sense Of Security

It sounds good on the surface: Ban yourself from a casino and you won’t be able to risk it all. The problem is that leads to a false sense of security as a player believes he has resolved the behaviour when he has actually only treated the symptom and not the root cause. In the same way that taking over-the-counter medications won’t fix a broken bone, self-exclusion programs do not treat addictive gambling. 

Ultimately, professional help is crucial in overcoming a harmful gambling habit. A counsellor can help identify the underlying causes that lead to the problem and can assist in coming up with alternate techniques to ultimately curb the behaviour. 

There’s no way to restore your status once you’ve gotten yourself banned, so you can’t return even if you’ve overcome past gambling behaviour. Finding credible non-GamStop casino operators on CasinoGam.uk that aren’t legally required to enforce such bans is a common way to get around this situation, ensuring you only spend time and money at the most trustworthy overseas sites.

Storing Identity Information Is Risky

Self-exclusion schemes require accurate, detailed information about a player’s identity in order to work; information is checked against a database when signing up for a covered casino site to see if a ban is active, which means all that information has to be stored somewhere – and where large amounts of data is stored, inherent safety risks skyrocket. 

Collecting and storing too much personal data leads to confidentiality and privacy breaches, especially in an age where it’s easier than ever to steal. Once those details are in someone else’s hands, it’s effortless to access other private information, and that leads to a host of other problems that are much harder to solve.

Ineffective Communication Invalidates Benefits

In order for self-exclusion schemes to work, operators must clearly communicate the terms of the process; a scoping literature review found communication is a key factor in their success. Failure to properly relay information leads to misunderstandings, and those can lead to players accidentally violating the terms without realising it. 

Self-Exclusion Stigma & Shame

Though seemingly innocuous, self-exclusion schemes can also lead to strong feelings of shame and embarrassment as participants feel stigmatised, especially in those where community members have strong opinions on betting. It doesn’t help that friends and loved ones may hold common misconceptions about the nature of uncontrolled gambling behaviour. They may believe that:

• It’s not serious – It’s unfortunately common to believe that problematic gambling behaviour isn’t that big of a deal. However, research and experience both reveal the extent to which these actions can have devastating consequences for others. 

• It’s easy to quit – Some believe quitting is as simple as walking away, and they may wonder why a loved one goes as far as to join a special program to ban them from the casinos. 

• It can’t be treated – It’s just as common to believe that a person affected by problematic gambling behaviour is doomed to struggle for the rest of their life. The truth is that it’s just as treatable as any other condition.

All of these prevalent beliefs influence and foster the growth of feelings of shame, which can lead a person not to seek the proper help they need.

In summary, several factors can contribute to safety risks and the overall ineffectiveness of self-exclusion schemes. Aside from better, more refined research in the field, it’s imperative to incorporate more holistic support to effectively address problematic gambling behaviour. In the meantime, the onus is on the individual to take more responsibility for their actions.