Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[jelsmith]

No kidding....they didnt ask if he was in college when they took his deposit....this just reeks of lame...sorry but it does.

[clubworld]

I am afraid I can’t compromise Glunn11’s privacy or our security procedures by stating exactly what evidence I have that he is still in full time education.

It is unrealistic for us to contact every player who registers an account with us to ask if they are a student before we permit them to deposit and it is perfectly normal for 18 year olds to leave school and get a job.

It is irresponsible for us to encourage people to gamble when they are still dependant on their parents and attending school full time.

Regards
Tom

[ksech]

As part of our responsible gaming commitments we are not permitted to allow people who are in full time education to gamble with us.We have strong evidence that Glunn11 is a student and is currently studying for a degree. When we asked him about this he claimed he was no longer a student and was working for a living so we asked him to provide some documentary evidence to support this.

Our account verification process is quite straightforward and consistent, however in certain circumstances we may ask for additional documentation to cover off any specific areas of concern.

Kind Regards
Tom

So, if I was a full time student (at age 50), I wouldn't be able to gamble within your casino group? (I'm not trying to stir a hornet's nest here, just trying to understand this term...)

Maybe I read the OP's initial post wrong, but didn't they state they deposited by QT? From what I remember, QT is strict when you open a new account...i.e.hone call to verify person, also you have to verify a small withdrawal from said cc/bank account to verify account is in person's name.

[Casinomeister]

So, if I was a full time student (at age 50), I wouldn't be able to gamble within your casino group? (I'm not trying to stir a hornet's nest here, just trying to understand this term...)

I think the crux of the matter is this:

It is irresponsible for us to encourage people to gamble when they are still dependant on their parents and attending school full time.

If you are 50 and going to school full time, I'm sure you have the means to support yourself - at least I would hope you would. That's a bit different than someone straight out of high school.

[spiderlegz]

IMO its nothing about them being worried about the students money. Dont believe for a second that it would be because of their responsible gaming commitments. I have some experiences on their so called responsible gaming commitment which at least to me showed that it was their pockets that they cared about.

Most bonus hunters are students and Club World has demonstrated that they dont like those by charging transaction fees (sometimes even retroactively), disconnecting and setting betsize limits to zero on low HE games during wagering etc

[Casinomeister]

IMO its nothing about them being worried about the students money. Dont believe for a second that it would be because of their responsible gaming commitments.

Most bonus hunters are students and Club World has demonstrated that they dont like those by charging transaction fees (sometimes even retroactively), disconnecting and setting betsize limits to zero on low HE games during wagering etc

Actually, I think you're dead wrong in this situation. Are you implying that CWC doesn't take responsible gaming to heart? I know the operator well, and this policy has nothing to do with bonus hunting; it has to do with not taking money from those who can least afford it.

[Pinababy69]

I was wondering if Tom could comment on the link I posted to the Aladdin's Gold thread, where this topic was also brought up and I highlighted a case that had been mediated at Gambling Grumbles. The guys was no longer a student, and hadn't been a student when he played (according to Steve Russo at GG)...the player provided proof of this ie. his degree...yet CW/Aladdin still refused to pay him the 12K he won (7K of winnings). If the person is not a student...what is up with that?

As Spider mentioned, the retroactive fees thing also doesn't sit right with me...it's happened more than once, although I hadn't realized it was students that were having this applied to their withdrawals. But I would guess that's a topic for another thread.

To just use a blanket statement that students cannot play....really doesn't address the issue of responsible gambling. I'm 47, I could win a lottery jackpot tomorrow, and decide to go back to school full time. Would I be disallowed from playing? Or have any winnings confiscated? How can you possibly know a person's financial situation? At 14, I had a full time job and a part time job, and my own apartment. Granted, gambling wasn't an issue..but the point is that you can't fit people into compartments.

What about someone who is a supposed responsible adult...and deposits 5K or more at a time. Do you stop to ask them if they are gainfully employed, and can afford to make large deposits like that? How do you know they didn't raid the household/mortgage money to do that?

I am all for responsible gambling, and for operators taking a harder line to help "self professed" problem gamblers....but where do you draw the line?

Maybe I could find this easier to accept had I not read that case at Gambling Grumbles and CW's refusal to pay even after the player proved (and supposedly the casino agreed he had proven it) that he was no longer a student, and hadn't been a student when he signed up, played and won. His only mistake was that after graduation and receiving his degree, he hadn't as yet found a full time job...and thus he put down student as his occupation upon registration. CW accepted his 5K deposit, which they did return after the mediation attempt by Steve Russo. Would that have been returned had Steve and GG not gotten involved? Would you have cared that he put down student as occupation? Why was he allowed to deposit in the first place?

None of this is holding alot of water right now. But again, I'm all ears and more than willing to listen to Tom's side of it.

If I can ask GG to send the player here, will CM accept a PAB from the guy?

Thanks in advance.

[lottethedog]

CWC takes action from the US, and therefore there is no real authority as to where complaints can be lodged (unlike GIB/Malta etc), as like it or not gambling online in the US is border line illegal/grey area.....Not saying this is "right" but it is the case

To not allow students to play is plain farcical. Perhaps they should not accept action from the US until the legal situation is cleared up? That's responsibile....

Will they be giving the player his deposits back?

[spiderlegz]

Actually, I think you're dead wrong in this situation. Are you implying that CWC doesn't take responsible gaming to heart? I know the operator well, and this policy has nothing to do with bonus hunting; it has to do with not taking money from those who can least afford it.

I sure hope they have changed but based on my experiences (mostly 2007-2009) I would say at that time they didnt take it seriously JMO. Edit: not just against them, they were no worse or better than most of the other casinos. So could well be that they have improved on that point.

To Pina, cant say if they were students. Mainly used the examples to show how negative they are against bonus hunters and APs. Their bonus arent that EV packed but they do pay if you dont break any rules hence why some play them.

About excluding students, the term is not hidden but actually very clearly displayed in the T&Cs so kudos for that at least. But by the same logic they should exclude unemployed or people earning clearly below median income.

[Pinababy69]

To Pina, cant say if they were students. Mainly used the examples to show how negative they are against bonus hunters and APs. Their bonus arent that EV packed but they do pay if you dont break any rules hence why some play them.

About excluding students, the term is not hidden but actually very clearly displayed in the T&Cs so kudos for that at least. But by the same logic they should exclude unemployed or people earning clearly below median income.

Gotcha Spider...I had read it wrong perhaps. But yes, I know what you mean about the retroactive fees thing.

And also agreed that the term is clearly displayed...no argument at all. My main concern is, as you mentioned, where and how do you apply this? And there are many examples of everyday people, who aren't students....who (financially) have NO business gambling. But who are we, or anyone, to tell them how to spend their money.

Maybe a student is 20, lives in a dorm, has a part time job and on Friday nights...rather than hitting the bars or drinking a keg of beer, he wants to deposit $20, have a few spins and maybe get lucky. I don't know..I'd rather my kid do that, than get shit faced drunk and drive home. I just don't know how this rule can be FAIRLY applied, without the casino knowing every single detail of a person's private and financial situation. And that is really none of their business. And to just apply it in a blanket manner, isn't really fair either.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that I don't think CW is a bad operator, and not trying to pick on them. I just happen to think that this is a valid topic for discussion. I had seen that term at CW a few months back when I first read the case over at GG, and had actually considered starting a thread back then asking for opinions on the term itself, but never got around to it.