Casino responsible gambling tools: deposit limits, self-exclusion and cooling-off at 15 casinos

Key findings

• 13 of 15 casinos describe at least one limit tool (deposit, loss, wager or session limit) in their public documents; 5 of 15 describe all four (BitStarz, LeoVegas, mBit Casino, Mirax Casino, Wild.io).
• Per tool: deposit limits 12 of 15, loss limits 9, wager limits 9, session limits 7, cooling-off or time-out 15. The rest is “not published” – we read the responsible-gambling page, the help centre and the terms and did not find the tool.
• 0 of 15 casinos state in a document that a tool does not exist. Every gap in the matrix is therefore an absence of a statement, never a statement of absence; we do not infer that a tool is missing.
• Self-exclusion: 14 of 15 publish a duration or a permanent option; 10 of 15 describe a permanent or indefinite exclusion that cannot be reopened (BitStarz, Guts, LeoVegas, mBit Casino, Mirax Casino, Rizk, Roobet, Shuffle, Wild.io, Winz.io); stated minimum or shortest periods: 888casino 6 months, BC.Game at least 6 months, Betway 6 months, Guts 6 months, mBit Casino 6 months, Mr Green 6 months, Rizk 6 months, Shuffle 6 months, Wild.io 6 months, Winz.io 6 months.
• Where the tools are described: 10 of 15 in the binding terms (alone or with a help page), 5 only on a responsible-gambling or help page. A tool named in the terms is a contractual commitment; one named on a help page can change without the terms changing.
• 15 of 15 casinos link at least one independent help organisation from their responsible-gambling page.
• Every entry is a casino statement (“Casino says”): 15 of 15 records carry that evidence level, none is verified inside an account – we did not open accounts to test the tools, most of which sit behind login.

How to read the matrix

Each cell answers one narrow question: do the casino’s own public documents – the responsible-gambling page, the help centre, the binding terms – describe this tool on the date we read them? “Yes” means they do, and it is the casino’s statement, not something we switched on in an account. “Not published” means we read those documents and did not find the tool. It is not “No”: a tool can exist behind login without being described anywhere public. Under Methodology v1.6 an absence is never recorded as a finding against the casino – only a document that says the tool does not exist would produce a “No (stated)”, and none of the 15 casinos here contains such a statement.

The tools differ in what they do. Deposit, loss and wager limits cap money in, money lost or money staked over a day, week or month; a session limit caps time; cooling-off or time-out suspends the account for a short period; self-exclusion closes it for months, years or permanently. A reminder of time spent is not a limit and is not counted as one. Self-exclusion durations are recorded as the casino words them: the shortest or minimum period where one is stated, and whether a permanent or indefinite option exists – the two are not the same, and the guide to responsible-gambling tools explains what “permanent” means at each regulator. These statements count in the responsible-gambling category of the Smarter Score as casino claims, marked “Casino says” on every profile; they are never verified by us.

If you want to use a tool, set it before the first deposit and tighten it rather than loosen it; if gambling has stopped being fun, the responsible-gambling page lists independent help organisations and blocking software that work regardless of what a casino offers.

The data

Per tool

Counted from the matrix above.

How we checked

For each casino we read the responsible-gambling page, the help-centre articles it links and the binding terms, and recorded for each tool whether the documents describe it. The record keeps three states: the tool is described (“Yes”), a document states that it is not offered (“No (stated)”), or nothing was found (“Not published”). Self-exclusion is recorded with the shortest or minimum period the documents name and whether a permanent or indefinite option exists; a reminder of time played is not recorded as a session limit. The source documents, the evidence level – always a casino statement here – and the date read are stored with the record. The matrix, the per-tool counts and every number in the text are computed from the same records that generate the profiles, following Methodology v1.6; no account was opened and no tool was tested.

What this dataset does not show

• “Not published” is not “not offered”. The tools usually sit behind login; we only report what the public documents say.
• A described tool is not a tested tool. Whether a limit applies to crypto deposits, how long an increase takes to apply, or whether an exclusion covers sister brands is only shown where the document says so – see the profile notes.
• Durations are the casino’s words on the date read. A “permanent” exclusion at one casino may be an indefinite one that can be lifted after a minimum period at another; the guide explains the difference.
• Nothing here is a safety rating or a reason to choose a casino; national self-exclusion schemes and blocking software work independently of these tools.
• Only casinos with a published research profile are included.

Questions

Which casinos have deposit limits?

12 of the 15 casinos in this dataset describe deposit limits in their public documents: 888casino, Betway, BitStarz, Guts, LeoVegas, mBit Casino, Mirax Casino, Mr Green, Rizk, Roobet, Wild.io, Winz.io. The others publish nothing about deposit limits in the documents we read, which is not the same as not offering them.

Which casinos offer permanent self-exclusion?

10 of 15 describe a permanent or indefinite self-exclusion that cannot be reopened: BitStarz, Guts, LeoVegas, mBit Casino, Mirax Casino, Rizk, Roobet, Shuffle, Wild.io, Winz.io. 4 more publish a duration without a permanent option, and 1 publish no duration at all.

Does “Not published” mean the casino has no such tool?

No. It means the responsible-gambling page, help centre and terms we read on the date shown do not describe it. Many tools exist only behind login. Only a document stating that a tool is not offered would be recorded as “No (stated)”.

Can I reuse this table?

Yes, under CC BY 4.0: use it, quote it, build on it, and name SmarterCasinos with a link as the source.