Online Casinos - Casinomeister Logo
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Betsafe now at it.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Isle of Man
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    127
    Thanked 406 Times in 118 Posts
    Rep Power
    40
    Reputation Points: 4042
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono777 View Post
    Hi Rachel

    Is this a 'rolling figure' IE: £xx,xxx.oo within xxxx weeks / months / years or a standing target IE: £xx,xxx.00 since the account was created please?

    I can see both sides of the coin on this one but the example in blue would make more sense.

    If its the Red part them I'm totally confused as this will even affect even the pitiful once a week low rollers like myself who have remained loyal for years upon years as they will eventually, even if it takes 10 years, hit this standing target.

    As I type this I serious think it has to be the blue part as who's going to question 10 years of previous problem free history, surely not?
    It's essentially the blue part, but that's not to say that your second example wouldn't warrant a check eventually depending on the style of play. Maybe it's a player who has never made a cashout after years of gambling, or they have, on occasion, won thousands from a deposit but lost it instead of cashing out. In those cases, straight deposit amounts don't tell the whole story.

    There are so many variables that can be taken into account and I'm sure every casino has a different policy.

    All these variables can be interpreted differently, but my opinion would be that if you ever receive a source of income request from an accredited casino, you are dealing with a responsible and compliant casino who are preempting a requirement instead of waiting until the last minute to request it.

    Rachel.
    Award Winning Accredited Casino Trada Casino Review

  2. Thanks Jono777, Tirilej thanked this post
    Likes Jono777 liked this post
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    149
    Thanked 123 Times in 90 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    Reputation Points: 2684
    Quote Originally Posted by jjezebel37 View Post
    Got an email asking for revertification as part if their new procedures with a clear shot of my income. I honestly haven't a problem with docs but I'm uncomfortable with this request.
    Wow! I'd be running real quick! How dare them!

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    149
    Thanked 123 Times in 90 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    Reputation Points: 2684
    Quote Originally Posted by nutnut View Post
    just tell them you're a drug dealer and can't declare your income
    You can if you live in Canada.
    lol
    . Seriously!

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Londonia
    Posts
    4,115
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    3,341
    Thanked 2,752 Times in 1,196 Posts
    Rep Power
    167
    Reputation Points: 25369
    'There are so many variables that can be taken into account and I'm sure every casino has a different policy'

    'All these variables can be interpreted differently'

    Says to me that UKGC regulations mean diddly squat as casinos can adapt them to suit their needs. As long as there is no defining, uniform rules in place that can't be skirted around the players will never have fair, full transparency as to casinos' methods, thus giving casinos free reign to ask for ever-more intrusive personal details. Not in agreement with this
    Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Isle of Man
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    127
    Thanked 406 Times in 118 Posts
    Rep Power
    40
    Reputation Points: 4042
    Quote Originally Posted by goatwack View Post
    'There are so many variables that can be taken into account and I'm sure every casino has a different policy'

    'All these variables can be interpreted differently'

    Says to me that UKGC regulations mean diddly squat as casinos can adapt them to suit their needs. As long as there is no defining, uniform rules in place that can't be skirted around the players will never have fair, full transparency as to casinos' methods, thus giving casinos free reign to ask for ever-more intrusive personal details. Not in agreement with this
    The UKGC regulations mean an awful lot, actually.

    All of their policies have the player in mind. Without them, rogue casinos could make their own rules, open excluded accounts at will and exploit vulnerable players.

    As I said, the 'source of income' check is not a requirement sprung upon players at the time of withdrawal. It's done when a player reaches certain predetermined thresholds. This is not about us having free reign. Why would any casino request source of income from a high roller and risk losing them as a result of this request? The answer is, to remain responsible and compliant. I would be more worried about establishments that don't enforce these requirements.

    I'm just trying to offer an alternative perspective here. I want you to see that casinos (at least the accredited ones), don't do this to be purposefully intrusive.
    Award Winning Accredited Casino Trada Casino Review

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    142
    Thanked 287 Times in 188 Posts
    Rep Power
    46
    Reputation Points: 5865
    Quote Originally Posted by TradaCasino View Post
    An example of why this requirement is in place is here: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...customers.aspx

    "As a result of the crime, the customer was sentenced to 16 months in prison for theft and false
    accounting.

    Our investigation found no evidence that 888 engaged with the customer to ascertain if they had
    any problem gambling issues or to confirm their source of income."


    Had this customer been asked for source of income at any stage, it would have been clear they were spending much more than they could afford. The account would have been closed long ago, the customer would have been referred to GamCare or similar, and the issue with the stolen funds from the employer could have been avoided.

    Rachel.
    But the UKGC haven't actually gave any real figures to support what they say

    The customer staked over £1.3million, including £55k stolen from their employer. During a 13 month period the customer placed a large number of bets, gambling on average 3-4 hours a day. The lack of interaction with the customer, given the frequency, duration and sums of money involved in the gambling, raised serious concerns about 888’s safeguarding of customers at-risk of gambling harm.
    55k out of 1.3 million is nothing, its what, just over 4%? Plus it doesn't actually state what the deposits were, just the wagering that was done, whereas, presumably the 55k was deposits.

    If 1.3 million was deposited over 13 months, would you really pick up on about a 4% higher than could afford rate? Obviously if his yearly salary was £25k and he deposited say 200k in 12 months there would be cause for concern.

    But how do you look at things too?
    My income changes month to month. Some months I can make £500, other months can be 5k+. Take June as an example, I made around £6k, but also won over £4k in cash at bookies. Also had (I think) about 5 withdrawals from casinos for £1k-2k.

    But, if you had asked me for proof of income from say my August bank statement, there was under £1000 income, yet I deposited over £3k to casinos. Does that mean I would get banned as my income for that month was much lower than my deposits? How would that work, that could go on forever, I sold a house in 2013 which I still have some money left from, do I have to show all my bank statements going back to the house sale to prove where that cash came from? What about the money I used to buy that house, would I then have to prove how that was paid for, as if it was paid for with stolen money, the profits would be proceeds of crime, and therefore you would have to report that (assuming it gets reported).

    Do you see where I'm coming from?

    Also, as this is clearly money laundering related, if you aren't satisfied with the explanation, do you also report it to the police like the banks have to? If not, who regulates and checks what you are doing?

    Sorry for the questions, I just genuinely don't understand how this will do any good at all. I can clean thousands of £'s every day if I had dodgy money, just using FOTB's in bookies, if I then pay that into my bank account theres no way your checks could show otherwise, so I just dont see what value they have.

    EDIT: sorry that comes across a little harsh, when I say 'your' checks etc, it isn't aimed at you personally, but meaning the checks you have to do

    Also, thank you for answering the thread (and my pm the other day) so quickly

  8. Thanks ladyhawke, bebo67, adamtheaddict thanked this post
    Likes goatwack liked this post
  9. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    149
    Thanked 123 Times in 90 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    Reputation Points: 2684
    Quote Originally Posted by colinsunderland View Post
    But the UKGC haven't actually gave any real figures to support what they say



    55k out of 1.3 million is nothing, its what, just over 4%? Plus it doesn't actually state what the deposits were, just the wagering that was done, whereas, presumably the 55k was deposits.

    If 1.3 million was deposited over 13 months, would you really pick up on about a 4% higher than could afford rate? Obviously if his yearly salary was £25k and he deposited say 200k in 12 months there would be cause for concern.

    But how do you look at things too?
    My income changes month to month. Some months I can make £500, other months can be 5k+. Take June as an example, I made around £6k, but also won over £4k in cash at bookies. Also had (I think) about 5 withdrawals from casinos for £1k-2k.

    But, if you had asked me for proof of income from say my August bank statement, there was under £1000 income, yet I deposited over £3k to casinos. Does that mean I would get banned as my income for that month was much lower than my deposits? How would that work, that could go on forever, I sold a house in 2013 which I still have some money left from, do I have to show all my bank statements going back to the house sale to prove where that cash came from? What about the money I used to buy that house, would I then have to prove how that was paid for, as if it was paid for with stolen money, the profits would be proceeds of crime, and therefore you would have to report that (assuming it gets reported).

    Do you see where I'm coming from?

    Also, as this is clearly money laundering related, if you aren't satisfied with the explanation, do you also report it to the police like the banks have to? If not, who regulates and checks what you are doing?

    Sorry for the questions, I just genuinely don't understand how this will do any good at all. I can clean thousands of £'s every day if I had dodgy money, just using FOTB's in bookies, if I then pay that into my bank account theres no way your checks could show otherwise, so I just dont see what value they have.

    EDIT: sorry that comes across a little harsh, when I say 'your' checks etc, it isn't aimed at you personally, but meaning the checks you have to do

    Also, thank you for answering the thread (and my pm the other day) so quickly
    I agree 100% with what you say. My income bounces all over the place too. So what happens if someones income is through their own business? Own and operated by yourself? And is their a list of casinos that are regulated by this commission? And is this only enforced with people living in the UK, EU?

    I should also add, looking at someones income really means nothing without looking at their expenditure and debt ratio. Someone could be making over 100k a year, but be in debt 3x's that, and someone with a small income could only have a small amount of bills. I think it's a " to serve you better", while covering a casinos butt, while being invasive.

  10. Likes ladyhawke, goatwack liked this post
  11. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    625
    Thanked 752 Times in 419 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Reputation Points: 8198
    So you cant deposit say 100k at one casino because say the treshold sits at 99k

    But you can deposit 10 lots of 90k across 10 different casinos and spunk away 900k

    Doesnt make sense to me

    Yet more interference by Government.
    For casino reviews - www.slotplayers.co.uk

  12. Thanks bebo67 thanked this post
    Likes ladyhawke, goatwack liked this post
  13. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    The other side of midnight
    Posts
    94
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    Reputation Points: 454
    @Trada: "Had this customer been asked for source of income at any stage, it would have been clear they were spending much more than they could afford....it is a necessary evil which is in place to protect more vulnerable players."

    I am seriously in agreement with goatwack here... "Still, I don't get why casinos take this pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling."

    It has been a struggle for years to even get paid our winnings, while casinos took our deposits without any affordability checks, as it was against their business interests. But now, under certain circumstances, and at the whim of the casino, we are going to have to justify our deposits, and why? It is certainly not because casinos have changed their stance on deposit verification, but because their hand has been forced by the UKGC.

    So a double whammy to us players, as the often difficult process of verification of withdrawals will still exist.

    Casinos 1. Players 0.

    And by the way, is there any redress for players who have previously spent more than they could afford due to lack of checks? Not a chance. Just the casinos taking 'a pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling.'

    Spending more than you can afford is not just limited to online gambling e.g. FOBTs, betting on any sporting event, compulsive spending on many ordinary goods, etc.

    So online gambling is not the only way to ruin lives, but it is a very easy target.

    And Colinsunderland makes some very good points regarding flexible but legitimate income.

    Some people have multiple sources of income spread over multiple bank accounts. Are you then meant to show details of every one of these accounts when asked for proof of income? Very intrusive behaviour by the casino if that is the case.

    Or...if your deposits are income from a series of casino wins, do you then have to show to the casino making the request winnings from OTHER casinos to justify these deposits?

    However, what really grinds my gears is that a casino will now have the power to make an arbitrary decision that you are living beyond your means, whether or not that is actually the case as people have different priorities as to how they spend their own money.

  14. Thanks goatwack thanked this post
    Likes bebo67, adamtheaddict liked this post
  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks
    149
    Thanked 123 Times in 90 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    Reputation Points: 2684
    Quote Originally Posted by ladyhawke View Post
    @Trada: "Had this customer been asked for source of income at any stage, it would have been clear they were spending much more than they could afford....it is a necessary evil which is in place to protect more vulnerable players."

    I am seriously in agreement with goatwack here... "Still, I don't get why casinos take this pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling."

    It has been a struggle for years to even get paid our winnings, while casinos took our deposits without any affordability checks, as it was against their business interests. But now, under certain circumstances, and at the whim of the casino, we are going to have to justify our deposits, and why? It is certainly not because casinos have changed their stance on deposit verification, but because their hand has been forced by the UKGC.

    So a double whammy to us players, as the often difficult process of verification of withdrawals will still exist.

    Casinos 1. Players 0.

    And by the way, is there any redress for players who have previously spent more than they could afford due to lack of checks? Not a chance. Just the casinos taking 'a pompous stance on being advocates of responsible gambling.'

    Spending more than you can afford is not just limited to online gambling e.g. FOBTs, betting on any sporting event, compulsive spending on many ordinary goods, etc.

    So online gambling is not the only way to ruin lives, but it is a very easy target.

    And Colinsunderland makes some very good points regarding flexible but legitimate income.

    Some people have multiple sources of income spread over multiple bank accounts. Are you then meant to show details of every one of these accounts when asked for proof of income? Very intrusive behaviour by the casino if that is the case.

    Or...if your deposits are income from a series of casino wins, do you then have to show to the casino making the request winnings from OTHER casinos to justify these deposits?

    However, what really grinds my gears is that a casino will now have the power to make an arbitrary decision that you are living beyond your means, whether or not that is actually the case as people have different priorities as to how they spend their own money.
    Agreed! And how is this any different then the banks blocking deposits? It's not because its on the stance that they " are looking out for us", or how is it different than a country banning gambling? Again it isnt! And yet the casinos are 100% against that happening. I think if any casino sees irregular playing and huge multiple deposits, then its up to the casino to flag and then request any information, but to go and build walls and encompass rules that are under assumption before anything happens is just wrong in so many ways! I think this commissions rules need to be fought! And yes they can be!

  16. Likes goatwack liked this post
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Betsafe riddles (10 years of Betsafe)
    By dutchyboy in forum Online Casinos
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 30th April 2016, 12:40 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bladwijzers

Bladwijzers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Legal Statements and Privacy Policy
Casinomeister.com does not intend for any of the information contained on this website to be used for illegal purposes. You must ensure you meet all age and other regulatory requirements before entering a casino or placing a wager. Online gambling is illegal in many jurisdictions and users should consult legal counsel regarding the legal status of online gambling and gaming in their jurisdictions. The information in this site is for news and entertainment purposes only. Casinomeister.com is an independent directory and information service free of any gaming operator's control. Links to third party websites on Casinomeister.com are provided solely for informative/educational purposes. If you use these links, you leave this Website.

Casinomeister is a registered trademark ®.  You must be 18 years or older to participate in any casino listed here