I've only played to great lengths on the iPoker network, so I can't really comment on other networks.

This site seems very keen to talk up it's 'commitment to responsible gambling.' This to me is an absolute nonsense, token gesture of a statement.

I have just played a player who has played over 7000 games on the site, at an average stake of £32 and lost in excess of £80,000. At no point has this player showed any signs of improvement, or put together any sort of run of results.

Yet, this player is allowed to continue to operate on the iPoker site. Why ? Surely a site with a 'commitment to responsible gambling,' can see the same as I can that this player has no reason to be on the site and is not gambling responsibly.

From the outside looking in, it would appear iPoker are happy to keep this cash cow and actually have no interest in responsible gambling at all.

It looks to me to be yet another case of 'we don't care what goes on on our site as long as we make as much money as possible.' That attitude really frustrates me and I feel sites need to be doing more to run the best site possible, not merely the most profitable site possible.

What do people think of this particular situation and sites' attitudes in general to what goes on on their site ?

Maybe he is a multi-millionaire or billionaire and that amount of money is like losing 1k to you.

Which leads to another couple of points:

1. I'd say it's still not gambling very responsibly, the player clearly cannot play poker, why not move to games such as blackjack or roulette where there would be nearly a 50% chance of winning.


2. How is it possible to play 7000 games and not improve ? We're human beings, we learn as we go along and learn from our mistakes. How could you not think, 'that doesn't work, or, I've got myself in trouble with that before,' etc.

lol

1. I don't think you understand blackjack or roulette.

2. Go to a brick and mortar casino. Enter the cardroom. See all those old people there? Most of them can't play at all.

Yep, pokersites should definitely exclude people who have lost more than $100. See you at the micromania guys!

So because a guy is a loser and get enjoyment from playing the site should ban his rich ass...

If a family goes to the movies every week and does not become movie stars should they get banned????

Not everyone want to be a pro(even a winner for that matter)...Poker is entertainment for most...

So what should a site do exactly op? Should it send every customer who loses a substantial amount of money documents to prove he or she is in a position where they can afford the losses. Its not the sites responsibility but rather the onus is on the player to gamble responsibly.

This is a gambling forum Op in case you hadn't noticed not self help for the problem gambler. Poker sites are there to fleece as much money as possible from their customers thats what they are in buisness to do. If a person writes and says please close my account due to a gambling problem, this is what they are alluding to with promoting responsible gambling. Poker Room I recall also had limits a player could set in the amount he or she could lose on a daily basis.

Wow, most ******ed thread I read in a while.

Agreed

I thought that in blackjack you could make a 98% return in the long run and in roulette around a 97% return. Is this not the case ?

If it's not the site's problem, then that's fair enough, but you shouldn't print on your site 'we have a commitment to responsible gambling,' when really you've got nothing of the sort and would infact prefer it if everyone gambled completely irresponsibly, as that would generate bigger profits.

These sites literally appear to be answerable to nobody.

Search him and read his other threads. This guy is a fake, weird troll, but his other stuff is a bit better quality than this in terms of ******ation (if you suspend your disbelief about him being a fake).

Monteroy, I'm not fake, weird or a troll (?). I'm failing to understand why you think this or what your apparent problem with me is.

There is no reason to assume that the player in question is any sort of problem gambler. Big losses may correlate with problem gambling, but one doesn't imply the other.

Must ban losers imo. That's what I would do, I'ld be poor but have a very good karma.

Right, but the person is clearly not gambling responsibly. Which the site claims to have a commitment to.

But that's not the point I'm making.

This is an extreme case, which the site, if they are true to their claims, should have dealt with.

Blackjack I dont know but roulette is easy. This is all about the 00 and 0.

You bet on black you have 18/38 chances of winning = 47.3684%. 94.73% of Return.

Think it's 18/37 isn't it ?

Depends if there's both the 0 and 00 I think. Never played it in a casino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette

Looks like french roulette would be 18/37 and american 18/38.

I assure you that by calling you a weird, fake troll I am actually paying you a high compliment compared to the alternative if you are genuine.

No need to thank me. Enjoy your chatter with others who fall for your routine (whether fake or real). You space out these silly threads so that you get new people every time, so have fun with it.

All the best.

You don't seem to know what gambling responsibly means. It doesn't mean you don't lose. It doesn't even mean you don't lose a ****load every time you play, or in a very quick manner. It DOES mean you don't gamble money you can't afford to lose.

Guy Laliberte loses millions of dollars to players who are way better than him. There are definitely other ways he could gamble where he wouldn't lose as quickly. But he's still gambling responsibly because he doesn't need the millions he loses.

I fail to see the problem here OP

OP claims to play for a living and has yet to buy tracking software claiming he needs all the money to buy food and shelter. If there was an argument for someone needing to be banned for their own good it is OP.