Rich Reels: Policy blunder, and refuses permanent exclusion.

[BoyleCasino.com]

dustin: perm. exclusion is a hallmark of any casino worthy of licensing, I am sorry ur business model does not include that, good day.
hi,
sorry to say no online casino seems to have this function at all ask 32red ! you can indeed get this at bricks & mortar casinos without any problems at all , they will ensure that you can never walk through there casino or any other in there group ( uk ), i wouldnt be surprised if 3dice was the only casino to where you could indeed ask then for a life time ban & they would uphold it , casinos see £ signs & $ signs most casinos are only interested in this , not all of them ,but most , it shows in the other thread which ( nate ) had started , about how much bc is there for problem gamblers & so much more. standard should be if any player at any time asks for a total ban from there chain in casinos most be upheld . under no circumstances should any CASINO let the player reopen a account, for whatever reason this way they shall not be held responisble for any problems arising from that player , its simple to most people , just not to casinos , because perhaps theyre thinking more funds into there accounts ,

This post concerns me a little... Any operator licensed by a credible jurisdiction must provide responsible gambling facilities including permanent self exclusion as part of their licensing requirements. If any operator refuses to exclude your account on request I would recommend contacting the jurisdiction by whom they're licensed.

[vinylweatherman]

This post concerns me a little... Any operator licensed by a credible jurisdiction must provide responsible gambling facilities including permanent self exclusion as part of their licensing requirements. If any operator refuses to exclude your account on request I would recommend contacting the jurisdiction by whom they're licensed.

I see you have a great sense of humour there

As Bryan said about some jurisdictions, "might as well complain to the mailman".

Even if they replied, they would say that no breach has ocurred until they actually DO allow a problem gambler back, and what tends to happen is that they only notice when the returning problem gambler WINS, and they react by blaming THEM for giving in to temptation, and confiscate their winnings and return their deposit on the grounds that their play was invalid because they had asked for an exclusion in the past.
This has happened to quite a few CM players, who have gone back after closing accounts, been able to play and LOSE again, but have WINNINGS confiscated when verification checks reveal that they are on the exclusion database.
WINNING problem gamblers get their money back, but those who LOSE are able to carry on digging themselves even DEEPER into the mess.

[mrjones]

This post concerns me a little... Any operator licensed by a credible jurisdiction must provide responsible gambling facilities including permanent self exclusion as part of their licensing requirements. If any operator refuses to exclude your account on request I would recommend contacting the jurisdiction by whom they're licensed.

hi its a taboo subject for casinos , my point only being that if a player asks for a life time ban or states that theyve had a gambling problem ,a casino should never reopen a account period .this player/member should be blocked forever on all of there sites/ groups.

[3mptyseat]

This is a very important point...

since MG chopped off a bit of its software and either sold it or leased it out or whatever (I still do not understand exactly what occurred or why) the U.S. only facing software is NOT accredited here, NOT eCogra certified... no one is looking after the mutated, U.S. only, former MG, hen house in other words.

And yet, many of the US facing sites are linked to accredited and audited sites and share the same name...

Even if they replied, they would say that no breach has ocurred until they actually DO allow a problem gambler back,

Well, I checked a day later to see if they would let me back. U may recall, the CSR I dealt with the other day had said they would unless I requested self exclusion bc of a gambling problem, but I thought maybe there was a chance that someone at this company would say, 'we can't let someone wishing to be excluded back...', alas; they have no such qualms.

And before I submit that proof, I just want to opine on the terms of self exclusion and how they might play out.

Some say self exclusion is a pipe dream plausible only in an ideal world bc many casinos have the "c.r.e.a.m." motto.

A few people seem to stand with the school of thought that says the player must declare themselves a "problem gambler" or else the exclusion is merely ceremonial and can be reversed at any time.

The other side seems to think that anyone asking for exclusion should be held to that request. Furthermore, any casino not honoring that request rigidly is not only doing the gambler a disservice, but they also should be held in violation of their licensing...

Well, I side with the last of these positions if for no other reason than this: The first scenario, which allows the self-excluded player back if 'problem gambling' was not cited in the original exclusion request seems to ignore the fact that the player may very well be a problem gambler, but deep in the bowels of an addiction, hence incapable of admitting to themselves let alone a casino the reality of their situation...

I don't feel like a player should have to be (a) A problem gambler to exclude themselves. Nor (b) Past step 1 in the 12 step program to exclude themselves if they are a problem gambler. Anyway, here is some recent email correspondence I had with a CSR @ RR:

[vinylweatherman]

The problem is that sometimes a casino MISTAKENLY assumes a player has a "problem" just because they have asked to no longer receive emails, or close an account.

This is why there needs to be a way for players who want to express their dissatisfaction with a casino, but who are NOT "problem gamblers", to make their views felt. Taking one's custom elsewhere is usually the ONLY thing that makes a business sit up & take notice that the dire service they have been offering has finally started to drive their customers away. Simply moaning to lowly CS staff NEVER makes management aware of the problem, so nothing EVER goes "on record".

How often have players contacted CS to be told "you are the first person to report this issue", yet the "issue" is one that has been going on for AGES, and been the result of numerous complaints by other players, even numerous forum threads.
This shows that DESPITE all the complaints, they were ALL "forwarded to the waste paper basket" for further action, and this was probably because the issues were NOT actually driving customers away.

As soon as you ask to be put through to "account closures", service standards step UP several gears, and you often end up being put through to "customer retention", where all those things that you were told were "no-can-do" suddenly become "YES-can-do" if you stay with us.

What is needed are short term exclusions that WORK, so if a player chooses 6 months, he is stuck with it. If a player CONFIRMS they want it PERMANENT, they are stuck with that too. If a player merely wants to close their account as a protest, and don't specify any time span, they are given the minimum on offer, which should certainly be MORE that just a couple of days. The self exclusion options should be made clear to the player, and it should also be made clear that whatever option they choose, they are going to be stuck with.

All "gambling problem" related exclusions should be for LIFE, as it is recognised that the only "cure" is permanent abstinence, the same as with any other addiction.

[BBKPoker]

Seems like:

1.) Any credible site should permanently exclude a member on request.

2.) Regardless of whether you personally think the amount the OP is upset by is small, or the timeframe reasonable, if the OP has really lost 25k as he claims to have within 5 months with them, whatever manager is running the casino is an absolute idiot for letting him leave over $54, and OP should probably switch to a casino that is run with some competence and actual intelligent customer service rather than mechanical responses.