Limiting players from diffrent countries

[Nesehorn156]

Lately it feels like there’s always news about new restrictions or poker sites pulling out of certain countries. On one hand, regulation can make things safer for players, but on the other, it can reduce traffic and limit options. I don’t think online poker is going anywhere, but it might look very different in the next 5 to 10 years. Smaller rooms may struggle while bigger platforms adapt. Personally, I think player demand will keep the game alive, even if it becomes more regional. What’s your take, do regulations help protect poker or slowly push players away?

 

[dangbaonguyen93]

It won't die.

 

[s0ftdumps]

It does add real protections, clearer withdrawals, better oversight, and less of that shady “will this site disappear tomorrow?” feeling. That matters a lot, especially for casual players who just want to play and not stress about safety.

The downside is exactly what you said: fragmentation. Ring fenced player pools kill traffic, especially for mid stakes and niche formats, and that’s usually where the ecosystem starts to feel thin. When options shrink, players don’t stop wanting to play poker, they just start looking for workarounds or drift to unregulated rooms again.

 

[aorodrigo]

I am not a big fun, but CoinPoker solves it. Unregulated, but really big. Crypto only.
I think everyone is safe there

 

[Alex Houngan]

I think regulations are a double-edged sword for online poker. They can definitely make the game safer and more transparent, but at the same time they reduce player pools and kill action. When traffic drops, games get tougher and less fun for casual players. Poker will survive, but it may become more fragmented and regional unless sites find a smart balance between safety and accessibility.

 

[burba]

I keep questioning how much of this is really about player protection and how much is about governments wanting control and tax money. Some regulation is clearly good—fund security, fair games, basic safeguards—but a lot of it seems to hurt liquidity and limit choices. High licensing costs and ring-fenced markets push smaller rooms out and reduce traffic, which makes games worse for players.

When sites leave certain countries, it’s usually not because poker is unsafe, but because regulation makes it unprofitable. Players don’t stop playing—they just move to grey markets or find workarounds. Poker isn’t going anywhere, but if regulation goes too far, it risks pushing players away instead of protecting them.

 

[Chebchoub]

Hello
Poker has become politicized recently, particularly since the start of the aggression against Ukraine. Since then, several poker rooms have adopted unfair rules towards certain countries.

Generally, I've noticed that most poker rooms that have closed their doors to certain countries have seen their popularity and reputation decline, but they continue to profit and are content with their existing clientele.
Personally, I believe this is the intention, or rather, the plan employed by decision-makers in the world of poker and gambling. They exploit most countries initially, then exclude some under the pretext of politics or other excuses, then open a new poker room and repeat the same strategy.

Anyway, as long as I'm playing poker, good luck to them😂

 

[dompoker]

I think so, we are at risk of player limitations, in some countries, due to the economic policies of each country.