Late self exclusion

[JHV]

Of course not, BUT would the casino have paid?

There have been cases of casinos REFUSING to pay WINNINGS in this very scenario.

1) Player asks for account to be locked
2) Player gets tempted, and finds account STILL OPEN.
3) Player deposits, and WINS
4) Casino says, sorry -can't pay as you "self excluded last xxxxxx"
5) Player ONLY gets deposit back.

Given the above, it is not only the PLAYER that complains on one outcome, and not the other - it can be the casino too!

5) should work both ways. If player has winnings confiscated when playing a "self excluded" account, so should the casino have IT'S winnings confiscated where they come from an account that is "self excluded" but through incompetence has been left available to the player.

Yup. Was going to say something similar.

I wonder if, for these tricky spots where it's hard to know if the delay is due to simple error, failure to implement effective procedures or (shock, horror!) actual unethical intentional lag...some sort of Common Law or historical action rule of thumb could be used to regulate future actions....

So, for Ruby Fortune here (amazing result): In the future, should they face a situation where a player has WON during a mistaken delay in applying the requested Exclusion....they could point to this and say "hey, we pay out when player loses in this spot - refunding player deposit is all we can be expected to do here!"

In fact, if this were uniform policy (REFUSAL to pay out winnings, all bets refunded) from the moment a player requests to be Excluded, that would be close to perfect handling of the complex issue, imo. As a gambler who's faced this myself once, I know that if SOP is that my bets are effectively play money from that point, the Self-Exclusion is effective immediately.

Players could never look to angle-shoot casinos who've simply made a mistake. Casinos could never look to angle-shoot players by intentionally delaying the Exclusion.

I requested exclusion from the casino side of a poker site as I have a lot on there for H/MSNL - and the nature of H/MSNL means a lot of sitting around bored as players sit out against you, or games break when you sit, or players win a small amount and immediately run, etc. It's very frustrating and boring - and after losing 200k <?> or so on house edge sidegames, I bit the bullet and requested Exclusion from their 2 casinos which were attached to my poker bankroll.

They excluded me from one fairly quickly, but it took many weeks before I was excluded from the poker client sidegames. During that time, bored with empty tables, I lost a lot on those sidegames. Eventually, frustrated, I demanded Exclusion and they panicked and 'accelerated' the block. I did feel hard done by, to be honest. But I took it no further as I believe:
a) It was a genuine mistake and that there were complications for the very long delay.
b) I'm a big believer in taking personal responsibility for your actions (I could have hassled them more to Block me, I could have started my sessions on other sites more often whilst I knew the exclusion wasn't in place, etc).
c) On the *very* slim chance that my large volume of wagering on high HA games resulted in a net win, they would have had a really angry poker player on their hands with the ability to bring down a fair amount of heat onto them from poker community. So I felt it would be unfair to even scold them for the delay, let alone request any form of reimbursement.

But the fact is, I was a bit hard done by. If casinos had a stated policy of: All Wagers Made Post Self-Exclusion Request Are Null and Void - I reckon that would eliminate all potential for confusion. As a gambler, if you know the bets were void, you wouldn't even make them as you know you're playing play money literally.

------

I have similar concerns with casinos who don't pay out on Underage Wins but who happily accept Underage Losses - with the understanding this is a far more complex issue.

When I was 16, I wandered into Jupiters Casino on the Gold Coast with friends - completely unaware that gambling was 18+ only. I wasn't carded, I had like $10 to my name, and I won $60 or something. I looked very young for my age - and ofc, as I was leaving I was asked for ID. Long story short:They took the winnings and gave me my $10 back and we all had a good laugh.

It was only weeks later that I thought "hmm, if my first bet had lost......?"

You know?

[bonusgeek]

I think the implication here that online casino companies are disinterested in curbing problem gambling is a little unfair.

Many companies - I'm thinking Bwin and many Microgaming licensees, for example - go to considerable lengths to guard against problem gambling, which btw presents more problems than profits for an operator.

And certainly EGBA leans heavily on its members to maintain active responsible gambling programs.

Bwin has spent millions in funding problem gambling research with respected outfits like Harvard, instituting site precautions and supporting the efforts of problem gambling counsellors. It is also an active particpant in the ongoing series of problem gambling training courses for casino management and staff that eCOGRA holds every year.

These training courses are also regularly attended by most of the Microgaming licensees, who often at some expense fly their staff in from various points on the planet for the purpose. They also go further than merely putting a Gamcare logo on their websites, incorporating problem gambling dedicated pages where players can self diagnose their gambling patterns and if required self-exclude themselves or interact with independent problem gambling organisations.

Your right, there are definitely many online brands that do act responsibly towards problem gamblers, no doubt about that. I just don't understand why the major software providers themselves can't make more of an effort to stop gambling addicts from gaining access to the software. Surely offering self exclusion right from the software would be the responsible thing to do, then mistakes like this situation here don't even come into play. Is it too technically challenging?

My whole thing is these big software companies make a conscious decision not to offer self exclusion from within the software, and my guess is this boils down to profit when this topic is being discussed in the board rooms. The current system doesn't work, case and point with this situation here; all the while the one thing that would work (self exclusion from within the software) is intentionally not being done, and there is a reason for that. That's all I am saying.

[vinylweatherman]

Well I commend Ruby Fortune for refunding this players money. What I question is why so many casinos conveniently make these mistakes and the players account remains open. I think this is a perfect testament just how cavalier even trusted casinos are when it comes to problem gamblers. So cavalier infact that they cannot even take 10 seconds to double check their work to ascertain this player does not have access to their account anymore.

IMHO the industry is a complete joke when it comes to gambling addicts. First of all it's hard to even conceive how we can be 10+ years since the advent of online gambling, yet only one of the casino softwares offer self exclusion right from the software, (RIVAL). Why do you think that is? And even rival only excludes you from the one brand instead of across all rivals like they should. RTG is a big joke, I don't think they have the word problem gambling in their vocabulary. Microgaming is probably the most ethical when it comes to problem gambling, but even they could make a lot of improvements.

The industry wants problem gamblers, how else can you justify not offering self exclusion right from within the software? Then we have situations like this where for one reason or another, the account was never locked. The funny thing is that I've been in the same boat as this player, and conveniently most of my requests either go ignored as well or a mistake is conveniently made and my account remains open. Infact it often takes threatening emails from me to hit the affiliate forums before I can make something happen. Maybe it has something to do with the kind of money a certain player loses and the casino not wanting to lose that action. But all I can tell you is after what I have experienced the past several years in this industry as a player, it makes me sick to my stomach to think how underhanded some of these casinos are that will stop at nothing to earn a buck.

It will always be up to the player to get help with his/her gambling addiction, but that doesn't mean this industry should be given a free pass to act cavalier or irresponsible towards problem gamblers. There are some rudimentary actions this industry can take to be more responsible, and until that happens I have to believe this industry wants problem gamblers. There is no other way to justify the current protocols.

Perhaps when this industry gets regulated the casinos will start acting more responsibly when it comes to problem gamblers. Maybe regulation will also stop these casinos from holding players money hostage with their nickel and dime $4K max weekly cashout limits in hopes that the player will give it all back. Either way this industry needs a lot of work, especially when it comes to problem gamblers and I am hopeful that one day progress will be made and there will be consequences for underhanded casinos who do not act responsibly towards players with a gambling problem.

Eh

So much as WIN from a free chip at one, and your accounts are locked across ALL Rival casinos, and you have to ASK/BEG etc. to have them unlocked, and many refuse, yet this "system" CANNOT handle a "self exclude" request such that a similar Rival wide account locking is executed.

What a load of .......................