Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[vinylweatherman]

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

What about people who are NOT students, BUT are NOT in full time employment either. Where do they stand?

With regard to responsible gambling, it is NOT just students that need protecting, there are many even POORER members of society, such as those living in poverty & on breadline benefits, trying to raise children.

My newly married niece is a prime example, but she WOULD be able to play at Club World under your current rules.

Perhaps the BEST overall option would be to raise the minimum age for playing at all Club World casinos to 21. This would cut out all students still dependent on parents and student loans, since these will be in the 18-21 age group. It will also remove doubt regarding "mature students" who have money to support themselves whilst taking a degree later in life.

The registration process could then EASILY block those under 21, without the need for the casino to ask every 18-21 year old whether they are students. It can be hard to prove you are NOT a student.

Those over 21 that are given the OK to play should be subjected to deposit limits far lower than at present until such time as they can demonstrate they have the means to afford to lose more. This could entail asking for a "proof of means" before agreeing to raise deposit limits. This could come from a wide range of sources, not just proof of employment. Proof of other income could be used, such as a bank statement showing what goes in. Players might not be happy about providing this, BUT they can be told "OK, but you will still have the restricted deposit limits applied to your account"

In some cases, students between the ages of 18-21 ARE able to gamble responsibly because they come from wealthy backgrounds, perhaps being given an allowance larger than many salaries that most other youngsters earn.

The main issues here are that these students are ONLY getting caught when they WIN, they are able to LOSE quite freely. The student whose case was discussed at Gambling Grumbles was able to lose a whopping $5000 before he finally won and got investigated. He claimed he didn't even break the terms because he only played after graduation. This case adds even further doubt, as it implies that even after graduation, you are STILL a "student in full time education" as far as Club World are concerned, and it is not clear at which point you cease being a student whilst still in that "limbo" situation in the summer after graduation before you get a job, or other "mainstream" forms of verification documents.

If CW want to protect vulnerable players, they should take the issue SERIOUSLY, rather than relying on this "student" clause which is open to interpretation on both sides, and is CLEARLY causing some confusion, and only protecting SOME players who should not be gambling.

I am puzzled about this "requirement" that Tom speaks of. Why are other casinos licensed in the same jurisdiction as CW NOT apparently subject to this same "requirement", or if they are, able to ignore it?

To many, the current system looks like an "excuse to void winnings" rather than a REAL attempt to protect the vulnerable from LOSING what they cannot afford.
The WAY the system is currently implemented looks like the rules are designed to prevent students from WINNING, rather than PLAYING, and seems driven by the need to crack down on "student syndicates" with plenty of free time on their hands, and enough "knowhow" to play most bonuses in a +EV manner.

[clubworld]

The issue you refer to over at Gambling Grumbles was reported in a misleading manner. The player in question told us he was a student and even supplied his student ID as his proof of ID when verifying his account.

Our approach to responsible gaming covers a wide range of areas, of which this is just one. We are not naïve enough to think that after excluding students we need not take any further action.

When we determined that this player was a student we didn’t close his account, void the winnings and close the case. We continued communication and enquired as to how he was funding his gambling.

Pina – I am not sure what you feel is not holding water. Do you doubt that I have strong evidence to say this player is still a dependant in full time education, or do you doubt that excluding such people from playing is the right thing to do?

Regards
Tom

[ksech]

@ clubworld Tom, please don't take this as bashing, it's not meant to be! I'm merely trying to understand how until this person won they were able to deposit/fund an account if the casino stands so rigidly by it's terms and conditions? If they hadn't have won, but had made numerous deposits, would the casino eventually have flagged the account as the player being a student?

I understand the privacy thing and am glad you are standing by that. I'm just concerned this term can be taken in any manner of translation, IMO, it's too broad and makes it seem as the casino was okay with this person depositing, but OOPS! now they've won and they're a student, and we can't condone that. So, IF this person had /is a full time student, is the casino going to refund their deposits so the player can't come back and say you were "aiding and abetting" in their gambling? And close their account?

Also, is the casino ONLY concerned with persons who are 18 and full time students, possibly living off mommy and daddy? As Vinylweatherman and Pinababy have stated...
Why not worry about the "adults" who are unemployed, living off of social security/disability, or living beyond their means to support their gambling habits?

Who's to say I'm not a single, 50 year old woman who has lost her job, living on unemployment, and going back to school full time. But I decide I want to dabble playing online once in a while. Because I am 50 , would this then exclude me from this term? (BTW, I am gainfully employed at the same family owned restaurant for the last 31 years... you will just have to take my word for that though...)

Two people can read that same T&C and come to 2 different interpretations of what it means. Are they both wrong then?

[Glunn11]

My gut instincts says that there is more to this than what the OP has presented. I anticipate we'll find out what's up.

Now that the student issue has been brought into the equation, the request for full time employment makes considerably more sense. I was not thinking about that when I made the original thread.

Tom has confirmed that this is the issue and we are currently trying to resolve this over PM. I am currently not enrolled in any university -- I had some issues with the high school counselors and didn't meet deadlines in time to begin fall 2010 education with sufficient financial aid. (http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...ll-2011-a.html)

I have not heard back from support as to whether or not my invoice from a web content site I sell content to businesses through is sufficient proof.

[vinylweatherman]

The issue you refer to over at Gambling Grumbles was reported in a misleading manner. The player in question told us he was a student and even supplied his student ID as his proof of ID when verifying his account.

Our approach to responsible gaming covers a wide range of areas, of which this is just one. We are not naïve enough to think that after excluding students we need not take any further action.

When we determined that this player was a student we didn’t close his account, void the winnings and close the case. We continued communication and enquired as to how he was funding his gambling.

Pina – I am not sure what you feel is not holding water. Do you doubt that I have strong evidence to say this player is still a dependant in full time education, or do you doubt that excluding such people from playing is the right thing to do?

Regards
Tom

You should have asked this BEFORE he deposited $5000. There are reports on THIS forum from players asking why CW are asking them for documents BEFORE their first withdrawal, and even after their first DEPOSIT. YET this student had none of this, he was able to get through $5000 of deposits without ANY questions being asked. Only when he WON were the questions asked, and by this time it was TOO LATE. You have ended up CONFISCATING some $7000 from someone who "cannot afford the money to play". CW took his bets, they were happy when THEY were up $5000, and asked no questions as to how this young player got hold of the $5000.

I don't see why it is "impossible" to ask every 18-21 year old for "up front verification" when at the same time there are reports on this forum that some OLDER players are being REQUIRED to provide this very same "up front verification" before they can play.

If the player was NOT a student at the time he joined & played, it does not matter what he put in the registration form. You have a list of options, and you have to "pick the nearest" if your particular situation is not mentioned. he picked "student", so WHY did this not IMMEDIATELY cause his account to be referred for verification straight away based on the parameters provided of age and occupation. To say this is "impossible to implement" is complete BS!
Providing a "student ID" card only proves he WAS a student, not that he IS NOW a student. He was from the UK, and the casino asks for "photo ID". His student ID could have been the ONLY form of "photo ID" that he had at the time, and he saw no problems in using it because the alternative would have been to say he did not have "photo ID", but only the standard forms issued by the UK government of birth certificate, national insurance number, etc. NONE of these have the holder's photo on. "student ID" back in my days at university was issued by the student's union, not the university. It was not "student ID" so much as proof that I had PAID my union dues, and was thus entitled to use the facilities provided by the student's union both on, and off, campus.

Unless CW have evidence that the player whose case has been discussed had NOT graduated, but was STILL a "student in full time education" when he registered the account, there is NO reason covered by the terms for voiding payment. It can't be that hard to PROVE whether he has graduated or not. Graduates are issued with various certificates and other papers. Failure to furnish these would be reason to believe someone had not yet graduated.

Voiding winnings when a player has graduated earlier in the year is NOT covered by the terms, as graduation means that you are no longer "in full time education", BUT there is a period of time where you are "in limbo" waiting for the bureaucrats to shuffle the papers to move you from the status of "student" to that of "graduate looking for work".

Pseudo-code would be:-

IF (age<21 .AND. occupation="student") THEN
<lock registration process for account referral>
ELSE
<complete registration>

"referral" would then require the player to prove "means to gamble responsibly" in order for registration to be completed and the account activated.

Similar checks could be run with other input fields from the registration form in order to ensure that those who appear unable to support themselves comfortably cannot simply start gambling away large sums of money.


Of course, CW would lose a few customers this way, but these would be customers they SHOULD be losing.


Another move that would help keep gambling "responsible" would be to ban the use of CREDIT cards at the casino, in other words, gambling with FUTURE income, or even with money that could take YEARS to pay back to the card issuer. Deposit methods could be restricted to those where the player has to personally own the funds BEFORE they are spent at the casino, not be liable to pay them back to a bank AFTER they have been lost.

It will not stop players borrowing to play, but it will make it HARDER.





When I graduated, I was "in limbo" for a while before I "went on the dole" as it was in 1982. It took until August 1984 for me to move to "full time employment". Students today STILL face the same problems.

Technically, I was not able to "gamble responsibly" until August 1984, but would have been able to gamble at CW (had the internet existed in 1982) from the Summer of 1982. If I was asked for "photo ID", all I had was my "student union card", which I extended by buying an "associate membership". Fortunately, requests for "photo ID" were pretty rare in 1982, pretty convenient, since students were one of the few groups actually ABLE to show a "photo ID" in the 1980's.

[asianeyes]

I wonder what CWC comes up with next.
Maybe they will want your full medical history in the future...

AND YOUR FIRSTBORN!!!

[Pulver]

...and if he had lost he would ofcourse have had his deposits returned to him....?

Yet another casino to use every opportunity they get to stiff the player. What a joke of an industry.

[BingoT]

(http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...ll-2011-a.html)

Hey Glunn11 Thanks for that place I will show my son that one.
He goes to Uconn now in his 3rd year.
It has good info on it.
Good Luck to you.
~T~

[De Beuker]

...and if he had lost he would ofcourse have had his deposits returned to him....?

Yet another casino to use every opportunity they get to stiff the player. What a joke of an industry.

Yep, same old.
As long as you lose, you're welcome.

As soon as you win, we'll do everything to 'protect' you.

As far as I know, CWC does phoneverification as soon as you make your your first deposit at one of their casinos.
Would it really be so much trouble to include the question if the new player is a student or not?
Especially if the new player appears to be rather young?

[asianeyes]

What about people who are NOT students, BUT are NOT in full time employment either. Where do they stand?

With regard to responsible gambling, it is NOT just students that need protecting, there are many even POORER members of society, such as those living in poverty & on breadline benefits, trying to raise children.

My newly married niece is a prime example, but she WOULD be able to play at Club World under your current rules.

Perhaps the BEST overall option would be to raise the minimum age for playing at all Club World casinos to 21. This would cut out all students still dependent on parents and student loans, since these will be in the 18-21 age group. It will also remove doubt regarding "mature students" who have money to support themselves whilst taking a degree later in life.

The registration process could then EASILY block those under 21, without the need for the casino to ask every 18-21 year old whether they are students. It can be hard to prove you are NOT a student.

Those over 21 that are given the OK to play should be subjected to deposit limits far lower than at present until such time as they can demonstrate they have the means to afford to lose more. This could entail asking for a "proof of means" before agreeing to raise deposit limits. This could come from a wide range of sources, not just proof of employment. Proof of other income could be used, such as a bank statement showing what goes in. Players might not be happy about providing this, BUT they can be told "OK, but you will still have the restricted deposit limits applied to your account"

In some cases, students between the ages of 18-21 ARE able to gamble responsibly because they come from wealthy backgrounds, perhaps being given an allowance larger than many salaries that most other youngsters earn.

The main issues here are that these students are ONLY getting caught when they WIN, they are able to LOSE quite freely. The student whose case was discussed at Gambling Grumbles was able to lose a whopping $5000 before he finally won and got investigated. He claimed he didn't even break the terms because he only played after graduation. This case adds even further doubt, as it implies that even after graduation, you are STILL a "student in full time education" as far as Club World are concerned, and it is not clear at which point you cease being a student whilst still in that "limbo" situation in the summer after graduation before you get a job, or other "mainstream" forms of verification documents.

If CW want to protect vulnerable players, they should take the issue SERIOUSLY, rather than relying on this "student" clause which is open to interpretation on both sides, and is CLEARLY causing some confusion, and only protecting SOME players who should not be gambling.

I am puzzled about this "requirement" that Tom speaks of. Why are other casinos licensed in the same jurisdiction as CW NOT apparently subject to this same "requirement", or if they are, able to ignore it?

To many, the current system looks like an "excuse to void winnings" rather than a REAL attempt to protect the vulnerable from LOSING what they cannot afford.
The WAY the system is currently implemented looks like the rules are designed to prevent students from WINNING, rather than PLAYING, and seems driven by the need to crack down on "student syndicates" with plenty of free time on their hands, and enough "knowhow" to play most bonuses in a +EV manner.

As usual VWM, you apply sound logic.