Best answer.

Then Solomon the disputed funds - require the casino to donate, rather than refund, the winnings.

Nobody gets it.

It's not really a "refund" but rather release of winnings the player should've gotten it under normal circumstances but of course now they self-excluded, it adds some complexity: I think refund should apply to their bets. As to the winnings, sure, give it to a charity, the casino shouldn't keep it.

Nope. I get it. Just don't agree with it. If donated to charity, the casino could get a tax break and possibly even turn it into a PR coup. The player still loses as the casino was almost certainly pocketing winnings from him before he hit the big one.

The taxpayers take a hit, the player takes a hit, and the casino looks like a good corporate citizen while free-rolling. Not my preferred solution.

I should amend what I said before. It depends on the terms of whatever agreement was signed for the self-exclusion. I don't know how that works in reality, but if the terms don't specify that all future wagers are void then it is wrong for the casino to void wagers, and abhorrent to void only those wagers that are in their favor.

Okay, so the state confiscates the funds. Now the taxpayers get a boon, the degen is punished, and the casino is also punished.

ah! Now we're almost home.

The state confiscates the funds so the taxpayers receive a small bonus on the cut of the take that legislation guarantees them.

The casino must make the player whole, so he is not punished other than for wasting his time. Hopefully he wrangled some truly comped drinks out of the casino.

The casino loses the jackpot, pays to make the player whole, and (hopefully) is also assessed additional fines by the state.

A win for everyone but the casino. I'm good with that.

Why are you hell bent on making the player whole?

So if the player doesnt win ajackpot, he freerolls the casino and gets his losses back?

Seems like the right thing to do.

It's a ridiculously one-sided thing to do.

The point of a self-exclusion is to protect the player. If the self exclusion itself harms the player there's little point.

The casino shouldn't have to forfeit the jackpot to the state. There's no reason for such a huge disincentive other than hating the casinos and wanting to screw them. If they face penalties those penalties should not be based on the offense, not a function of the size of the jackpot. It's not even clear they've done anything wrong if they unknowingly allow a self-excluded player to play.

I would like to know how self-exclusions work. Is there a contract involved, and what are typical terms? Should a gambling addict be considered competent to sign a contract regarding his future gambling activity?

Why are you hell bent on changing my mind?

Any individual can obviously choose not to enter a casino. By filling out a SE form, he is obviously shifting all or some of that burden to the casino (depending upon the wording of the SE form) and the casino is accepting that burden.

seems like all it will achieve is everyone would have to present their id upon entering the casino and then wait for the security to scan it

otherwise there will be throngs of people just trying to freeroll all day

Because you're wrong and self-inconsistent. The Internet isn't a glorified poll where we all click a box and then quietly see who agrees. This is debate about a prospective policy, and someday if it were to come up at the ballot box or on your desk for signature into law, it would be nice to know you've examined all the alternatives and selected the best one.

The casino only accepts that burden because yhe state forces it to. So it's not a mutually agreed transaction with mutually agreed terms.

If anything, the party that has been coerced to sign - the casino - should receive the benefit of the doubt.

The player is making out like a bandit here. As a matter of fact, if you made players whole, as Alpha Fish pointed out, basically every player should go sign up for self-exclusion so that if the lose, they make a claim against the casino letting them gamble.

Regardless of whether the state forces them to accept it or not, they do accept it. If the owner does not like the terms, he (they) can self-exclude from the business and invest their assets elsewhere.

As for the mass free-rolling, does anyone actually believe that the casino could not enforce the self-exclusions if they had sufficient incentive to do so?

That's rich coming from you of all people.

The casino agrees to enforce self exclusions because it's a condition of their operation, obviously. They're intended to protect an at risk population. The casinos should be punished for not enforcing these measures, not rewarded with a freeroll.

Currently, the overwhelming (likely total) sum of the vast resources casinos have at their disposal to monitor their games goes towards protecting their bottom line, and virtually zero towards keeping self excluded players from playing. Catering to degens who are so thoroughly addicted that they gamble even knowing that they may not be able to keep their winnings if they hit a jackpot doesn't hurt their bottom line at all. Weird huh?

The focus here on punishing the degen is troubling. What would you propose we do to punish other vulnerable populations?

I look forward to your 250,000 word response where you repeat yourself over and over, incredulous that someone could ever call into question your (obviously) correct beliefs.

just scrolled through the other replies here to get a sense of the direction this thread started off in and
lmfao. i don't know tom ames but i'm going to guess that he has probably spent more time in casinos in the past three months than you have in your life, based only on your respective attitudes towards them.

Sure, in the same way that we could have zero crime if we poured enough money into police and surveillance.

Could the casinos do more? Definitely. Should they do more? Probably. Should the state, which forces them to have the self-exclusion program, also dictate the manner in which they should police it? That's fine by me.

That all having been completed, the casino's mandated obligation is done. If they want to go above and beyond their legal obligation, you're welcome to reward them by preferentially playing there.

[X] I propose we take away cars of people so addicted to alcohol that they continue to drink even though they know they can kill someone.

[ ] I propose we reimburse drunk drivers for damage to their cars. Those poor, vulnerable people!

[X] I propose we tax the hell out of cigarettes, and fund the future medical expenses of people who come down with smoking-related lung cancer and heart disease.

[ ] I propose a tax credit for cigarettes, those poor, poor addicts already spend enough already.

Any other "vulnerable" populations you want my cold-hearted opinion on?

Read better the first time and I won't have to repeat myself.

[X] Strawmen itt

It's useless to try to reason with this guy, once he decides he's right he will bend the fabric of time and space to reassure himself that he's got it all figured out. Just look at the moronic comparisons he's making. Interacting with people like him is exhausting, I regret it every time. The best you'll get is his response to you, where he essentially concedes your point and acts like that was his stance the entire time, and dismisses you. It's some sort of weird psychological defense mechanism.