Set them three years ago after a bad Six Nations period. Bronwyn had said something. I went on the apps that evening and set limits that felt responsible.
The limits are still there.
They've never been triggered.
Because I set them at amounts that felt like genuine restrictions at the time but that I never actually reach in a normal month anyway.
So technically: I use deposit limits. Practically: I have deposit limits that have never done anything.
I think I set them to feel like I was doing something rather than to actually restrict anything.
Anyone else have safer gambling tools that are essentially decorative.
Thirty minute reminder. After thirty minutes a pop-up asks if I want to continue.
I click continue every single time.
The reminder has never once resulted in me stopping.
What it has resulted in is a mild irritation every thirty minutes.
The pop-up is designed to create a moment of reflection. What it actually creates is a brief interruption before I click continue and return to exactly what I was doing.
Friction that doesn't create enough resistance to change the behavior. Just enough to be annoying.
The tools are built to satisfy regulators not to work.
That sounds cynical. It's the accurate description of how they've been designed and implemented.
A deposit limit that the user sets themselves and can change with a 24 hour cooling period after completing a quiz is not a meaningful deposit limit.
A session reminder that requires one click to dismiss is not a meaningful session reminder.
The tools exist to demonstrate compliance with responsible gambling requirements. They're not engineered to actually reduce harm in people who have developed problematic patterns.
The people who need them least will set them and feel responsible. The people who need them most will work around them.
That's not accidental product design failure. That's intentional product design success from the operator's perspective.
self-excluded from every licensed UK operator in 2021...
gamstop... the national scheme... registered and excluded myself for five years...
it worked for about three weeks...
then found offshore sites that don't operate under UK license...
not hard to find... fifteen minutes of googling...
deposited there instead...
the self-exclusion didn't stop the betting... it just redirected it from regulated operators with some protections to unregulated operators with none...
ended up in a worse situation than before the exclusion...
not saying self-exclusion is useless... for some people it works...
but for me at my worst the exclusion was an obstacle i navigated rather than a stop...
because the thing driving the betting doesn't care about your gamstop registration...
Conor's experience is the documented failure mode that the industry uses to argue that tools don't work and the harm reduction community uses to argue that tools need to be better.
Both sides use the same evidence differently.
At the exchange I watched accounts that had self-excluded return through linked accounts, family members' accounts, VPN-accessed offshore operators.
The self-exclusion was effective for low-motivation users. Ineffective for high-motivation users.
The people most harmed by gambling are also the most motivated to circumvent protections.
That's not a design flaw. It's a fundamental limit of any voluntary or operator-side tool.
The only self-exclusion that's harder to circumvent is financial. Blocking gambling transactions at the bank level.
Some UK banks now offer this. It's more effective because the friction is at a different point in the chain.
I have no safer gambling tools active on any account.
My methodology functions as its own restriction. If the criteria aren't met there is no bet. This operates regardless of emotional state because the criteria are external to the emotional state.
But I've been honest in previous threads that the methodology's discipline may depend partly on circumstances.
The question of whether I would need external tools if the circumstances changed is one I haven't answered.
I keep not answering it because answering it requires admitting the methodology might not be sufficient on its own.
The personal accountability point Conor makes is the one I find most compelling and most unavailable to me personally.
Margaret functioned as this without either of us naming it. She knew my patterns well enough that significant deviations would have been visible to her.
I have no equivalent now.
I have set deposit limits on my accounts. They're set at levels that don't constrain my actual betting. They're there for the same reason Taffy described. They make me feel like I'm doing something.
What I actually need is someone who knows enough to notice. Not a tool. A person.
I don't know how to acquire that at fifty-eight with a specific kind of loss behind me.
The tools are a substitute for the thing I actually need.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
