Online Casinos Directory

When gambling was first being debated one of the biggest questions was addictions. Though states could offer gambling, how would addicts manage? Would new addicts have the resources needed to help them? Where would funding come for these additional resources? All of these questions were used by anti-gambling legislators who believed that without the proper safeguards in place, no one would be able to manage if they had an addiction. They surely would fall into joblessness, foreclosure, bill defaults and overall financial disarray. Their stand, though debatable, held some viable arguments. What would legislators do if the problems with addiction became too hard to manage? Do people have the proper amount of resource centers and treatment facilities to handle an influx of gambling addicts? This is a question that California is facing right now and trying to find answers to.

California has long been a state that is trying to implement gambling. The state has a huge deficit to manage, and without the tax revenue dollars of gambling, there are few other options for bringing in the billions needed. This week the state looked into a new web-based program that would allow states to share a “self-exclusion” list for consumers. This is a list of people who feel that they can’t handle gambling, or don’t want that temptation, so they put their names on the “self-exclusion list.” Then, when they try to enter a casino their name will appear in the database and they will be denied access to the location. It is easy for customers to submit their names. The process involved downloading the paperwork or getting it from a land-based casino. Then the person has to fill it out, notarize it and return it to the state. Their name is then automatically submitted to the database. Casinos are tasked with checking every entrant into the location against the database and denying entrance to people on the list. It is going to work a lot like clubs that have an infrared scanner for all patrons to pass their IDs through. It easily checks their birth date and if they are banned from the club or have any complaints at the club. The self-exclusion list works a lot like that and it is hoped to save people with potential addictions from surefire financial disaster.

This time the new generation of self-exclusion check points will include asking all patrons for their state IDs or driver’s licenses. Those then are checked via a computer and a program to see if they come up on the database. It’s a lot like the types of machines used by bars and clubs when checking to make sure patrons are of age. A special light notes the date of birth but the name is also scanned to make sure the patron is not on a “banned” list for the club. It is this same type of technology that is going to be used by casinos to make sure that customers aren’t on the self-exclusion list. The list also will be shared throughout the country so gambling addicts have no way of moving from casino to casino or state to state for their gambling needs. This is the main way that the program will help out casinos.

In addition, with the added legal push of states for casinos to be more honest, transparent and customer-centric in their dealings, they need programs like this. States are putting the bulk of managing addictions and citing helpful programs for anyone with gambling problems directly in the hands of casinos. Casino operators have to be more advanced than ever because if they allow a patron who is on the self-exclusion list into the casino, states are going to start fining them big bucks. They know that every person who gets past their front door will potentially cost them. Though they can say they “tried” this is hard to uphold. Without qualified programs, state legislators are going to blame the casinos and bring them up to code. Some legislators are hinting that there will be a three-time rule where if a casino gets caught three times allowing gambling by a self-exclusion name, the casino will be not only fined, but also shut down for a set period of time. That means there are millions of dollars that could be lost if casinos aren’t ready to take on the responsibility of watching the self-exclusion list and managing it properly.

The self-exclusion rule for gamblers is again in the news. This is a list that casino gamblers can opt in on. If their name is submitted to the self-exclusion list, then they are denied entrance to casinos. Their name is included in a database and then it is the job of casinos to make sure all patrons’ names aren’t included. If they are, they legally have to deny the person entrance. This list was created to help people who have problems, but there have been glitches in the system. For example, a few months ago one player who was on the self-exclusion list was still allowed entrance to a casino and was allowed to wager for six hours. It wasn’t until he won and tried to collect his jackpot that the casino realized he was on the list and denied him his winnings. The problem with ignoring the self-exclusion list is that the casino benefits from the player’s money and wagering. A player theoretically could wager for hours before winning and that means he or she could wager thousands at the casino. In the end though, the player has no chance of winning even if they get the winning combination of cards or reel symbols. So the casino is knowingly taking their money with the final “out” of the self-exclusion list.

California is the first state tackling the self-exclusion list’s problems. It just created a web-based protocol that is networked for all-state access. Now it should be easier than ever for casinos to check their list and make sure a player is not on it prior to allowing him or her entrance to the casino. The reason casinos are being pushed to strengthen their laws is that this way legislators can now hold casinos responsible for players who manage to get into the casino if they are on the self-exclusion list. Casinos know this and are working to create their own laws that safeguard them. Letting players who are on the self-exclusion list into the casino is problematic on all levels. Not only is the player who wanted help at risk, but casinos are also in line for hefty fines from the government if they don’t uphold the procedures of the self-exclusion list and how it works.

Part two coming next.

Traditionally those who have gambling addictions are the ones who are wagering the most over time and the ones who have the hardest time walking away from a table. They are the “big spenders” who sit at casino tables and wager for hours. What casino would turn down that kind of return—especially with a given “out” if they happen to win? It is an ethical issue in the end. Should a casino be able to take money from players who they know they can’t pay? It seems like a sure-fire way of taking advantage of players and taking their money without conscience. Legislators are working to change things though. They want to reword the self-exclusion laws and make them more realistic. They want the casinos to be more vigilant in checking the names and truly not allowing those on the list entry to their casinos.

This is just one of the rules and regulations in Canadian gambling that need to be rewritten. It will take time, but gambling is popular enough that operators have a good idea of where the problem issues are and what needs to be changed. It is now up to those operators to make good on their promise to “protect” the gambling public…even if it means that they are ridding themselves of hundreds, even thousands, of dollars in revenue. The money is at the expense of players who have already asked for help by being put on the self-exclusion list in the first place. They should be given the protection they asked for and casinos should have extra checkpoints where gamers can be turned away if necessary.

In the future expect casinos to have additional rules regarding all their procedures, and that includes the self-exclusion rules. It obviously isn’t working for players with addictions and that is a major fault. It means that legislators have to create laws that govern how a casino checks players as they enter the casino and various rooms of the location. It is clear that casino operators are not vigilantly watching now and that is going to be a necessity as things move in the world of gambling.

Just like the rest of the world Canada is weighing out its gambling options. The country is hoping to legalize and regulate gambling successfully but it already is having problems. Studies are showing that a record number of residents are moving forward with gambling. The market is growing exponentially and that means that it needs to be ready for the huge surge in customers. Over the past few months the recession has made it difficult for gamers. A lack of discretionary funds has made gambling a low priority on the list of activities. People had to cut back on spending, vacations, luxuries and of course gambling. It made things difficult for operators and many had to tap into their cash reserves to survive. Canada is the same—operators have been struggling and now legislators are pushing for rewriting of codes.

One of the main problems is that the current rules being followed are not sufficient to protect players, according to lawmakers. They believe that an immediate rewording of laws needs to happen before more people are hurt financially and emotionally. In question are the “self-exclusion laws.” In these laws, casinos are to maintain a list of gamblers who believe that they either have addictions or could have addictions. Their names are then checked on a list and they aren’t allowed entry to the casino. This opting out of casino gambling is a good move—if it worked. Unfortunately throughout the past it has failed. More than a few players who were on the self-exclusion list were allowed entry to casinos in the various provinces of the area. They played games and one even won. Gaming critics say that casino operators will maintain the self-exclusion list, but few are eager to follow it. It is a great way for a casino to continue taking a player’s money and then have an immediate out if he or she wins. They can fall back on the law that says they should not have been at a casino table to begin with and therefore are not eligible for the win. Of course they would be informed of this after spending hundreds, maybe thousands, at the casino’s various games. It’s a win-win situation for gambling operators to be lax in enforcing the self-exclusion rules at the door. Once rules are made safe for gambling addicts, then online casinos will be the next target.

Part two coming next.

British Columbia is the latest place to shore up gambling laws and regulations. It’s no secret that the country is expanding its gambling regimen. Operators see the huge dollars available via gaming and want to take advantage of the huge potential dollars. One thing recent research has shown is that online gambling sites are growing exponentially. Although other markets have been hampered by the recent recession, gambling isn’t one of them. In fact, it is the only market that has shown consistent growth. Of course that growth isn’t as fast as other markets, but it still is moving quickly to return to pre-recessionary numbers. That is great news for gamers and industry insiders who have been long suffering in the signs for a financial turnaround in the market.

Recently legislators of British Columbia utilized the BC Lottery Corporation to help them alter current regulations in an effort to improve gaming. The current methods are reportedly insufficient, according to legislators, and are in need of a total revamp. This is why the BAC Lottery Corporation has been commissioned to play an integral role in the issue’s reconfiguration. Part of the biggest issue the organization will have to deal with is the “self-exclusion” rule. This is a rule where people can volunteer to have their names put on a list at casinos. Casinos are then instructed to not allow them into their businesses or to gamble. Those on the self-exclusion list are self-admitted addicts who have noted their need for help.

This past month one player was able to play and win big at a casino. Unfortunately, when he went to recoup his win, he was found to be on the self-exclusion list. How it was not found that he was on the list prior to gaming, is what is in question. How effective is the list if players on it are still allowed to continue gambling? Had the player not won, would he even have been found to be gambling at the casino at all? These are some questions that the lottery board are going to have to address and find viable solutions to prior to continuing gambling regulation.