Tips on self-exclusion and how it can affect your winnings

As with all instances in the igaming world, it is advised to know the rules and procedures and to know them well. This brings to mind a rather unfortunate event occurred in 2017 when an elderly man from Ontario had to forfeit his $10 000 jackpot winnings due to a self-excluding clause entered into with the casino years prior. John Marando had identified signs of developing a gambling problem 17 years earlier and had signed a self-exclusion agreement with the Mohawk racetrack in Ontario.

When he won the once in a lifetime jackpot his initial joy was soon replaced with disappointment when he was informed that he was ineligible to collect his winnings. This was due to new rule passed by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming whereby self-excluded individuals are not permitted to win prizes. This was in support of the commitment to assist problem gamblers who have self-excluded themselves to stop gambling. Instead of splurging out on some bucket list activities the elderly man was escorted off the premises and sent home. He should've definitely taken the time to read up on some self-exclusion tips beforehand!

Woman Denied $12,000 Slot Machine Winnings

In another instance a woman was denied her winnings after playing slots at OLG in Woodbine. Check the news snippet below

This event occurred at a land-based casino, but the same is being implemented at online casinos. The fact that players rarely come face to face with the casino operators makes self-excluding slightly more difficult. For example, there is nothing stopping the self-excluded gambler from creating a pseudo name and carrying on gambling. Some of the more forward-thinking sites have begun rolling out facial recognition technology to assist with this. This would, of course, make it far more difficult from a self-excluded gambler from re-entering a gambling site.

For those sites that have both a land-based and online presence the use of facial recognition can be used to match on-site security footage with a facial snapshot from a pc or mobile device. This technology is of course still rare and can be only found in a handful of sites who have made it a priority to enforce self-exclusion measures.

Despite the good intentions of industry regulators and casinos, the feedback has been largely negative. Marando had appeared disgruntled in an interview when he commented the casino didn't have an issue with taking my funds for all these years, but when the tables were turned, they didn't want to pay! He certainly has a point. Apart from Marando, there have been 29 reported cases since the new rules have been implemented of people being denied their winning as a result of a self-exclusion agreement entered with casinos. It is a tricky situation with strong arguments from both sides.

Despite these winners being denied these earning one must look at the overall implications of the strict enforcement of these rules. Yes, these individuals, who are problem gamblers, may have won a hefty amount now, but this doesn't mean they do not have a gambling problem. Their $10 000 winnings today may be reduced to a loss of $20 000 in the following weeks because they do not have the self-control to call it a day. This is why the strict enforcement of these rules must be carried out despite a few broken dreams.