This is utter nonsense. Responsible gambling is about not losing more than you can afford to lose. It does not mean that you should not lose any money, or not play games in a losing manner
If Rupert Murdoch goes to a casino, and loses $100,000, that is not irresponsible for him because he is a billionaire.
By your clearly ridiculous argument, it's irresponsible to offer any other games to the player than blackjack, because they all have higher house edges, and that will make the player lose faster.
The only reason someone has a bot is because they don't want to gamble, they just want to profit from the bonus.
I agree 'Responsible Gambling' includes not spending more than you can lose.
However, no online Casino is a position to determine the means of each individual that walks thru the door let alone whether they are your friend Rupert Murdoch. That's where your 'Responsible Gambling' argument disintegrates.
'Responsible Gambling' has a wider and greater meaning than the narrow interpretation you are currently applying to online Casinos. If your definition is correct than no online Casino would have ANY enforceable obligation toward 'Responsible Gambling' as they can quite correctly claim that is simply impossible to determine if any individual is gaming beyond their means.
To suggest otherwise is simply preposterous.
Prohibiting the player from access to a superior method of playing his cards is draconian to say the very least. It is tantamount to the house meddling, tampering or distracting the customer whilst in the process of attempting to play his best cards. Besides, card counting, which leaves 'bot' play for dead, is neither illegal nor prohibited in most B+M casinos.
Next thing you know online Casinos will be banning players from consulting the Wizard of Odds BJ strategy cards. Good grief! And you'll back on here shrugging shoulders and lamenting, "Them's the Casino rules. Let the players eat cake."