- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
32RED downgrades TAB/SE
- Thread starter Harry_BKK
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
In a way it's all semantics, tens of posts saying exactly the same thing. Paul, saying that TAB users shouldn't be gambling if it stops them reversing is frankly ridiculous. TAB is not exclusion, and is clearly labelled as such. There is no assumed reason for a player using it. When you open a bank account, you don't get an unlimited overdraft, do you? There are checks and balances in place to ensure responsible lending. Most of us wouldn't use it, but for the sake of some that would have a mad moment and go spending.
Now TAB could be because you're going on holiday, taking the cat to the vets or cycling your casino play (like I do.) No reason given. As for the UKGC, 32red have scraped and searched for an alternative interpretation to the rules which nearly every other casino read the same way. OK, forget the UKGC rules, they are clearly inadequate and the UKGC is on a (slow) learning curve as regards player protection etc. Let's look at the real underlying statement of intent here from the casino:
Not enough reversals, introduce a pending period of 1-4 days, depending when it's actioned.
So the savvy ones 'flush' - ermmmm.... OK we'll get rid of that before too many become aware of it!
Bugger! We've examined our stats and the crafty bastards are using TAB to circumvent the pending! Yes, yes it's our fault for having such long pending periods, but never mind! What to do? Quick, let's get some clarification...
Excellent! There is a loophole, we can remove the self-set option to absolutely maximize our reversals! We are now at maximum 'reversal efficiency'!
Some people just don't seem to appreciate how contemptuous all this is when aggregated. Wake up!
If your car insurance company wrote you:
9 months ago "Amendment: No courtesy car from now-on if yours in repair."
6 months ago "Amendment to terms: In-car Audio no longer covered."
3 months ago "Amendment: Compulsory excess raised from £200 to £500"
What would you do? Yes, you'd be straight on to that fat opera-singing bastard's Comparison Site to find a different policy provider with the original terms you had when you signed up. There's only so far you can exploit customer inertia - well you'd think!
And why are they getting away with it? Because YOU let them. Simples. (as the equally irritating stripy-faced little sods say).
Now TAB could be because you're going on holiday, taking the cat to the vets or cycling your casino play (like I do.) No reason given. As for the UKGC, 32red have scraped and searched for an alternative interpretation to the rules which nearly every other casino read the same way. OK, forget the UKGC rules, they are clearly inadequate and the UKGC is on a (slow) learning curve as regards player protection etc. Let's look at the real underlying statement of intent here from the casino:
Not enough reversals, introduce a pending period of 1-4 days, depending when it's actioned.
So the savvy ones 'flush' - ermmmm.... OK we'll get rid of that before too many become aware of it!
Bugger! We've examined our stats and the crafty bastards are using TAB to circumvent the pending! Yes, yes it's our fault for having such long pending periods, but never mind! What to do? Quick, let's get some clarification...
Excellent! There is a loophole, we can remove the self-set option to absolutely maximize our reversals! We are now at maximum 'reversal efficiency'!
Some people just don't seem to appreciate how contemptuous all this is when aggregated. Wake up!
If your car insurance company wrote you:
9 months ago "Amendment: No courtesy car from now-on if yours in repair."
6 months ago "Amendment to terms: In-car Audio no longer covered."
3 months ago "Amendment: Compulsory excess raised from £200 to £500"
What would you do? Yes, you'd be straight on to that fat opera-singing bastard's Comparison Site to find a different policy provider with the original terms you had when you signed up. There's only so far you can exploit customer inertia - well you'd think!
And why are they getting away with it? Because YOU let them. Simples. (as the equally irritating stripy-faced little sods say).
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
Is having a big win not like the wages at the end of the month and by Taking-A-Break means they don't blow the lot????
I asked you to stick to the facts regarding this part of your statement: "Until the newer casinos started with the instant payouts it was no big deal to wait several hours." as it was 32RED who introduced fast payments when they were new on the market.
If i was cynical i'd say there are always the same people questioning criticizing threads about 32RED but good job I'm not cynical.
paul7388
Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Location
- glasgow scotland
I had presumed you had quoted my earlier thread. But anyway instant casinos are ones that pay instant. like you said 32RED used to pay in a couple of hours for most people which isn't instant.
Anyway im not here to get into petty arguments about casinos. Leave that to everyone else.
And yes Dunover you can call this post frankly ridiculous as well. Coming from the person that throws his toys from the pram and closes his accounts at every casino any time a small problem arises. Personally I find that frankly ridiculous but each to their own.
Anyway will leave the usual gang to pat each other on the back and continue as they are.
Have a good evening all
Why people think that Taking a break to avoid a reversal of a withdrawal is an abuse of the TAB feature is beyond me? It just goes to show how well 32red's spin machine is working. Perhaps mark from 32red could point out where the UKGC have specified the correct uses for TAB and indeed the ones they count as an "abuse". It is obvious to me from that statement that their reasoning for the removal of the automatic feature was precisely to avoid what they have determined to be "abuse" (affecting the bottom line) when everyone using it was only actually being prudent and using the tool in exactly the manner it should be,which for the avoidance of doubt is "whatever way you the customer wants" because i see no criteria for its use.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
I get the title has been changed accordingly....but really, isn't this just about forkable now? We get it - people are unhappy with the changes and have expressed those changes. Some have gone as far as closing their accounts. Neat. Ok....so, what more do you want? I mean, you don't even play there now, you've warned others accordingly. Some have said (repeatedly) 'in conclusion', 'my last post on this'....but then, here we are, still going....expressing the same points over and over here and across multiple threads. If you don't like 32Red's methodology...well, geez, fine, move on.
According to max, they've followed the letter, if not spirit here of their obligations/requirements, and no terms broken.We've beaten the 32Red horse to death, no?
At what point does 'informing the members' become 'i have an agenda and won't rest until everyone sees it my way and/or 32Red changes'?
If it's the UKGCterminology, should that be a its own thread and titled accordingly?
Max asked anyone interested to keep it open.
I think it's fair, seeing as he's drawn and posted conclusions since, it be closed.
If it stays open, so be it.
At the least, I'll have fun tabulating how many 'final posts' I come across.
According to max, they've followed the letter, if not spirit here of their obligations/requirements, and no terms broken.We've beaten the 32Red horse to death, no?
At what point does 'informing the members' become 'i have an agenda and won't rest until everyone sees it my way and/or 32Red changes'?
If it's the UKGCterminology, should that be a its own thread and titled accordingly?
Max asked anyone interested to keep it open.
I think it's fair, seeing as he's drawn and posted conclusions since, it be closed.
If it stays open, so be it.
At the least, I'll have fun tabulating how many 'final posts' I come across.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It is the regulator that has decided that we mere citizens don't need to take this responsibility ourselves. If we didn't have this "nanny state" foisted upon us from an early age, we might learn to take more responsibility for our own actions from an early age. It was the US that started it by gaining a reputation for frivolous lawsuits that were actually successful, such as McDonalds being successfully sued for millions of dollars for failing to point out that their coffee might be hot. This, in part, has driven us towards a level of "extreme nannying" never experienced before. Schools are banning traditional playground games left, right and centre, giving kids little opportunity to explore risk by themselves and learn from their mistakes. We even have the newest craze that says that even innocent games like tag have to be banned as kids might actually make physical contact with each other, which has suddenly gone from being an integral part of childhood play to something SO bad that it has to be avoided at all costs. The argument is that kids might be traumatised by the slightest physical contact, even in a relatively passive game. The nannying arguments used to be restricted to the risk of injury from playing games like conkers, but having banned all such games, they are moving on to other forms of perceived harm.
The end result will be a cocooned generation who EXPECTS the state to protect them from all risk, and if they end up getting hurt, even slightly, because their own actions were not sufficiently micromanaged and policed, they will engage a lawyer and sue.
If instead you had the luxury of growing up in the 1960's and 70's before all this BS got going, you will have learned that for the most part you have to accept that it's your own actions and carelessness that has gotten you the grazed leg or the fractured arm, and it's a lesson learned for the next time you might consider such an activity. Kids used to be told "that'll teach you a lesson" when they came home hurt or covered in mud. Now the parents will be on the phone to a lawyer to ask whether they can sue.
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Location
- Wolverhampton
While were on that subject ' This is my last post', one last thing...........
New 'Claim to Fame'
I got 7 thanks on one post so finally I didn't totally upset the 'Apple Cart
'
Off to spin n smoke myself stupid, may even throw a beer in the mix
I'm out of this one too now, honest!
Edit: Posted same time, cracking post, good info @VWM, thank you!
New 'Claim to Fame'
I got 7 thanks on one post so finally I didn't totally upset the 'Apple Cart
'Off to spin n smoke myself stupid, may even throw a beer in the mix
I'm out of this one too now, honest!
Edit: Posted same time, cracking post, good info @VWM, thank you!
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
I get the title has been changed accordingly....but really, isn't this just about forkable now? We get it - people are unhappy with the changes and have expressed those changes. Some have gone as far as closing their accounts. Neat. Ok....so, what more do you want? I mean, you don't even play there now, you've warned others accordingly. Some have said (repeatedly) 'in conclusion', 'my last post on this'....but then, here we are, still going....expressing the same points over and over here and across multiple threads. If you don't like 32Red's methodology...well, geez, fine, move on.According to max, they've followed the letter, if not spirit here of their obligations/requirements, and no terms broken.We've beaten the 32Red horse to death, no?
At what point does 'informing the members' become 'i have an agenda and won't rest until everyone sees it my way and/or 32Red changes'?
If it's the UKGCterminology, should that be a its own thread and titled accordingly?
Max asked anyone interested to keep it open.
I think it's fair, seeing as he's drawn and posted conclusions since, it be closed.
If it stays open, so be it.
At the least, I'll have fun tabulating how many 'final posts' I come across.
With respect I could say the same to you regarding this thread?
If you don't like it, don't visit it. IMO it should stay available so any forthcoming victims of the policies can add their tales of woe, rather than starting, yes! another new thread....
Conclusions are fluid, and if somebody rang up the UKGC also quoting other paragraphs which mention 'immediate' and 'no third party' and asked the same question Harry did, mightn't the answer be different?
Paul, if you call removing your custom from a site due to shortcomings in CS or silly mistakes 'throwing out the toys' sobeit. Some people are willing to soak up the BS, some ain't. I won't as there are plenty of others who will do it right. They get my custom. On a larger scale these actions are what get us better service and improvements in most industries. Except gambling it seems.
P.P.S Vinyl - I had to laugh at your post, bemoaning the 'nanny state' and use of lawyers when in nearly every other post you advise people to seek resolution through the court system. Them bleeding lawyers, eh?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
With respect I could say the same to you regarding this thread?
If you don't like it, don't visit it. IMO it should stay available so any forthcoming victims of the policies can add their tales of woe, rather than starting, yes! another new thread....
Conclusions are fluid, and if somebody rang up the UKGC also quoting other paragraphs which mention 'immediate' and 'no third party' and asked the same question Harry did, mightn't the answer be different?
Granted we come from two sides here. We could go back and forth indefinitely.
Either way, I'm requesting Bryan and/or maxd for thread closure or beginning one specific to UKGC - as is my prerogative as is yours to post. - I suppose from there it's up to them. I even stated, if it stays open, so be it. Maybe NEW people will add tales of woe. Something NEW would be novel.
Honestly, I don't see any new 32Red information. If there's new ukgc info, neat. Sounds like a specific thread is good for it. Banging on the 32Red drum..I don't see the point. That drum? It's been banged.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Granted we come from two sides here. We could go back and forth indefinitely.
Either way, I'm requesting Bryan and/or maxd for thread closure or beginning one specific to UKGC - as is my prerogative as is yours to post. - I suppose from there it's up to them. I even stated, if it stays open, so be it. Maybe NEW people will add tales of woe. Something NEW would be novel.
Honestly, I don't see any new 32Red information. If there's new ukgc info, neat. Sounds like a specific thread is good for it. Banging on the 32Red drum..I don't see the point. That drum? It's been banged.
And the point of that.......is?
I'm sure many would see the paradoxical element of that statement. No real issues have occurred in ages with reference to casinos' relationship with the UKGC, apart from Bet-at's oversight recently with their caution which didn't affect players at all. So what subject would it inevitably attract? Let me guess - "Are/do you think 32Red are in breach of the wording or spirit of UKGC RG criteria?" And there it would continue. You can't unring a bell Dionysus. Kim Jong-un tries to in Pyongyang, to the detriment of the people and the ridicule of those of us outside.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
Granted we come from two sides here. We could go back and forth indefinitely.
Either way, I'm requesting Bryan and/or maxd for thread closure or beginning one specific to UKGC - as is my prerogative as is yours to post. - I suppose from there it's up to them. I even stated, if it stays open, so be it. Maybe NEW people will add tales of woe. Something NEW would be novel.
Honestly, I don't see any new 32Red information. If there's new ukgc info, neat. Sounds like a specific thread is good for it. Banging on the 32Red drum..I don't see the point. That drum? It's been banged.
Why should it be closed?
- we had 3 new pieces of information today alone:
> Max's statement - 32RED complies with UKGC regulation regarding TAB
> Simon's post - TAB was not done by LiveChat and it took 2hrs58mins to receive a response to his emailed TAB request
> Mac72 - actually called the UKGC to get confirmation
Further, I think it has been widely accepted that 32RED complies with UKGC regulation with regards to TAB, albeit that depends on everyone's subjective reading and interpretation of the said paragraph 3.3.4
However, the SE part has not been addressed by 32RED or Mark where the regulation clearly asks for "an automated process using remote communication". 32RED had that and removed it.
Paragraph 3.5.4, item 1 details how the additional step mentioned in paragraph 3.5.3, item 8 can be provided.
(Sorry but repeated posting of the paragraph in question for clarification purposes)
Screenshot from SR code, paragraph 3.5.3, item 8
Screenshot from SR code, paragraph 3.5.4
In all fairness, as there are probably other casino operators that don't provide an automated process for SE we should make a list and send it to the UKGC.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Location
- Eurozone
Granted we come from two sides here. We could go back and forth indefinitely.
Either way, I'm requesting Bryan and/or maxd for thread closure or beginning one specific to UKGC - as is my prerogative as is yours to post. - I suppose from there it's up to them. I even stated, if it stays open, so be it. Maybe NEW people will add tales of woe. Something NEW would be novel.
Honestly, I don't see any new 32Red information. If there's new ukgc info, neat. Sounds like a specific thread is good for it. Banging on the 32Red drum..I don't see the point. That drum? It's been banged.
No excuse me , with all respect , maybe I did not understand. To you user problems that arise from time to time (which of course are same)
you do not care anything and then, because there are no news from 32Red thread can be closed?
So it would be better to open 50 different threads each time a user has this same problem?
I wouldn't like to see it closed yet either.After another lengthy phone call to the UKGC they are to give a written response to me by Friday confirming that their rules allow the casino to implement TAB at a timeframe of their own discretion which as i pointed out to them (and i do believe the penny dropped) makes it a completely useless piece of governance. Nothing to stop any operator who decides not to implement it automatically having a customer with a large withdrawal just deciding to sit on the TAB and hoping they play it off. This should actually be cast iron proof that 32red are indeed working completely within the current criteria which is pure horsemanure (the criteria i mean!)
I also would like an answer from mark on the abuse issue of the TAB for this reason: i used it quite a bit especially at weekends and during the week if i hit big to avoid being tempted to reverse/annoyance at the long withdrawal periods (i actually only discovered it because triliej posted about it) and i promoted its use to many other forum members (harry etc.) for the exact same reason. I don't believe there was anything whatsoever wrong in doing what we were doing but mark's post says different and i'd like clarification on that.Its not good enough just because a certain piece of legislation works against them for a Company to say the use of it is an abuse and i really don't like the inference from 32red that " regular and frequent use of a Take a Break facility could be seen as indicating problematic behaviour; we are required to intervene and interact in such circumstances and that is why it is important that the facility is used as it is intended." I would take that as nearly trying to frighten people from using it as they may end up forced down the SE route. If i was using it consistently and anyone "intervened" i'd simply point out that while i wait on my withdrawal i'm not playing anymore and i don't see that as a problem.
I also would like an answer from mark on the abuse issue of the TAB for this reason: i used it quite a bit especially at weekends and during the week if i hit big to avoid being tempted to reverse/annoyance at the long withdrawal periods (i actually only discovered it because triliej posted about it) and i promoted its use to many other forum members (harry etc.) for the exact same reason. I don't believe there was anything whatsoever wrong in doing what we were doing but mark's post says different and i'd like clarification on that.Its not good enough just because a certain piece of legislation works against them for a Company to say the use of it is an abuse and i really don't like the inference from 32red that " regular and frequent use of a Take a Break facility could be seen as indicating problematic behaviour; we are required to intervene and interact in such circumstances and that is why it is important that the facility is used as it is intended." I would take that as nearly trying to frighten people from using it as they may end up forced down the SE route. If i was using it consistently and anyone "intervened" i'd simply point out that while i wait on my withdrawal i'm not playing anymore and i don't see that as a problem.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
Ouch, it's all my fault
No, but you have some good points in what you're saying there.
How come we thought it was fine to flush a withdrawal without saying people have a lousy self control? That is if the option were there of course.
But if someone are using the TAB function they have a lack of self control? It doesn't add up
I can imagine though that if it's used the same way, then removing the option to flush was to no use. I also think that if it hadn't been spread in this forum then maybe the automated TAB function still would be there. That's just me speculating but what do I know
I admit that I sometimes don't really know what I'm thinking (I'm a woman, we're allowed to be like that).
I've always worked for the weakest, and I still do, but I also demand that people take responsibility for their own actions.
So no flushing mean that if you can't control yourself then don't play there. If you can't wait for the TAB function you asked for to set in, then damn you have a lousy self control and should clearly only play where there are instant cashouts or instant TAB functions. Your choice.
Just stop blaming the casino. No more witchhunt.
When it comes to those some call ''victims'', I call them something else in silence, please all of you do a PAB, complain. How else will we know the truth. We've only heard one side of those issues and I don't judge anyone until I know the truth wether it's a player-member or a casino-member.
That was my final post too. My first final I think
Ouch, it's all my fault
No, but you have some good points in what you're saying there.
How come we thought it was fine to flush a withdrawal without saying people have a lousy self control? That is if the option were there of course.
But if someone are using the TAB function they have a lack of self control? It doesn't add up
I can imagine though that if it's used the same way, then removing the option to flush was to no use. I also think that if it hadn't been spread in this forum then maybe the automated TAB function still would be there. That's just me speculating but what do I know
I admit that I sometimes don't really know what I'm thinking (I'm a woman, we're allowed to be like that).
I've always worked for the weakest, and I still do, but I also demand that people take responsibility for their own actions.
So no flushing mean that if you can't control yourself then don't play there. If you can't wait for the TAB function you asked for to set in, then damn you have a lousy self control and should clearly only play where there are instant cashouts or instant TAB functions. Your choice.
Just stop blaming the casino. No more witchhunt.
When it comes to those some call ''victims'', I call them something else in silence, please all of you do a PAB, complain. How else will we know the truth. We've only heard one side of those issues and I don't judge anyone until I know the truth wether it's a player-member or a casino-member.
That was my final post too. My first final I think
There is absolutely nothing to PAB about here Sarah, it wouldn't stand a chance no rules have been broken by the Casino. And sure if you can't wait for TAB to kick in you should play elsewhere. I for one will continue to play at 32red from time to time and will make sure to TAB on every withdrawal unless someone can show me what i am doing wrong.
I'm not sure on the final part of your post re one side of those issues, i'm not quite sure what you mean?
The scenario i put to the UKGC today was simply "MR X wins big £50k at noon on saturday ,withdraws and wanting to protect his funds (no issue with gambling ) he decides to TAB for a week and sends in email to XXX casino to do so.He goes out partying with his mates buys drinks all round and returns at 3am sunday morning hardly fit to stand and finds he can still access his account and blows the lot.On waking sunday at noon he has some form of bad feeling in his stomach about what happened logs into his casino account and sees no withdrawal and a £0 balance. 2hrs later they find him in the garage swinging from a rope.
Now you can say whatever you like about Mr X's behaviour here, i actually don't think he has done much wrong he sought the protection available and then went to celebrate,perhaps if that protection had not been offered he would have sat sober in the house all weekend and sweated the withdrawal.He wasn't a reader of this forum so expected once his TAB request went in his account would be locked in a few hours if not minutes.
The Casino has done nothing legally (you decide ethically) wrong they had all the time in the world to action the TAB.
However the UKGC obviously identified this area as a problem and put legislation in to cover it.BUT that legislation was completely inadequate and in my opinion as written it borders on negligent and if a scenario like this occured and MR X's wife saw that he had tried to use RG tools that were not implemented in a timely fashion due to the negligence of the UKGC well i think there would certainly be a change in CEO of that organisation as well as the potential for a law suit/public inquiry.
If the UKGC didn't exist and there were no RG tools we wouldn't be having this debate but they do and if they exist they have to be effective.They don't need to do it all at once (overworked!!!) but they do need to do what they can RIGHT, a bad job is no job at all.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Location
- Cyberspace
I honestly still don't get why we are shifting the blame to responsibility and lack of self control. If this was so easy to do, then why has 32Red opted to take advantage of this? Its clearly a HUGE problem, to the extent that it is hurting their bottom line and to the extent that they are removing every little avenue that someone can use to put some sort of control in place.
My Example:
So we have a serial reverser - He tries to exercise control by saying ok, I had enough, I've doubled my deposit, let me flush my withdraw (Casino Removes Flush Option)
Ok, I might reverse this because of the pending period - Let me exercise control and take a little break until i get my funds (Casino removes TAB function)
Ok, I still might reverse so let me rather contact live help and ask them to lock my account (Casino hides live help somewhere)
Ok, I finally found Live help let me rather request my account to be closed (Casino says they can't and management will contact you within 72 hours)
Ok, crikey, ummm let me try to email them and ask them to manually add me to the 'vacation; list (No response from support in 3 hours)
Ok, im about to reverse this... Let me rather self exclude, im really trying here... (Casino asks you to print, sign, scan and email a document back to them all while you were playing on your tablet)
Ok... F*ck this, I can't take it - I've TRIED to show self control, but been blocked... withdrawal reversed and lost (Casino 1 - Player 0)
So to end my stupid example, yes, they should not play there if they don't like it, but this casino has thousands of active players and every day someone who is not aware of these critical changes falls victim to the trap they so cunningly planted. Their actions are inexcusable really and anyone who defends it or tries to plant it on the player fails us dismally as a community.
Nate
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2014
- Location
- england
Most shocking thing in this thread is guy who loses 15k in 2hrs, this makes me so angry, and not at 32red. But no one taking self responseability. 32red is being used as a scapegoat in that aspect, all blame falls to player.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
There went my final post but need to respond.
The only time I know was what Mark stated that there had been one request for a break and that had been done after 19 minutes.
I haven't heard about any other. Just one guy who claimed he had asked for it, but later he said they were playing with words. They apparently didn't understand what he wanted, or he had asked for something else. I don't know and noone of us does. That's why I wanted him to PAB, just to make it clear what happened.
It's so easy to believe what a player say but it's rare that we get to hear the whole truth.
I never judge anyone but I don't believe everything they say. Sometimes I can believe the casino more because they are just doing their jobs, while a player maybe have lost and are angry. Like in a bar I believe the bartender more than the drunk person.
It's also important here to treat even the casinos and reps with respect. What would this place be without them? Think about that for a moment.
Maybe 32Red is bigger now, but they are still here. They are still dealing with issues. It's still a give and take relationship. It would be good if we could keep that and keep them here.
@Nate
I agree, and I've stated that so many times. You have no idea how much I fought with them to allow people to flush. It didn't help, nothing we have said helped.
I accepted and moved on. I still don't like it. Just so you know and they know definately
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Location
- Cyberspace
Absolutely the players fault - BUT if you remove every single avenue that the player has to AID him in making sure he does not play, then we have a different kettle of fish.
Nate
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Location
- Amsterdam
Nothing wrong with Tirilej's analysis:
So, IF the flushing option had still been there, (much) fewer people would have used the TAB function, which I think is what 32Red found out, hence their decision to remove the automatic TAB (why else would they have done it?). All in all, it is certainly not a 'player friendly move', even when it's still in compliance with TAB regulation - and I also agree with the above statement that in that case the rules should be adapted to provide more protection to the players.
.
So, IF the flushing option had still been there, (much) fewer people would have used the TAB function, which I think is what 32Red found out, hence their decision to remove the automatic TAB (why else would they have done it?). All in all, it is certainly not a 'player friendly move', even when it's still in compliance with TAB regulation - and I also agree with the above statement that in that case the rules should be adapted to provide more protection to the players.
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Location
- Wolverhampton
Couldn't agree more!
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/32red-downgrades-tab-se.72598/
Also been having a little think and I really think UKGC went 'live' long before their house was in order and now there is a huge mess left to clean up, most of which will also affect players and forum regulars over and over again, frustrating doesn't even come close!
Out of this thread, Promise this time!
Good Luck all!
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2014
- Location
- england
It's more fact hey say you reverse it lose 1k, 2k or even 5k of it, logic kicks in ok i keep the 10k and make a double effort to close my account, but to lose all 15k.........just wow.
Even if 32red, did close his account with that little restraint he would have went and deposited the 15k again elsewhere. It's pissing in the wind for players like that sadly, they need banning from everywhere they're a danger to themselves.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Location
- Sweden
This is my resume of the original post.
The OP found out that 32Red had changed some routines regarding TAB(TakeABreak) and SE(Self Exclusion). The changes have been implemented so that the casino can earn more money because they probably need to, since the POC(PointOfConsumption) tax in the UK is eating to hard on their profit. For that reason they felt they needed to adjust some part of their business plan and those changes was “player unfriendly”, and be a little bit more like the big players in the market space like William Hill, Coral etc.
Since they build their business from the other end, being much more player friendly than the big players, I’m sure this wasn’t an easy decision to make for 32R. However we must remember that even after these changes they are still better than most. The thing is for 32R “that the higher they are the harder they fall”.
I believe that the mistake made by 32Red is the way the communicated this, and other changes.
They are still a very good and trustworthy casino and I see no reason to close my account.
The OP found out that 32Red had changed some routines regarding TAB(TakeABreak) and SE(Self Exclusion). The changes have been implemented so that the casino can earn more money because they probably need to, since the POC(PointOfConsumption) tax in the UK is eating to hard on their profit. For that reason they felt they needed to adjust some part of their business plan and those changes was “player unfriendly”, and be a little bit more like the big players in the market space like William Hill, Coral etc.
Since they build their business from the other end, being much more player friendly than the big players, I’m sure this wasn’t an easy decision to make for 32R. However we must remember that even after these changes they are still better than most. The thing is for 32R “that the higher they are the harder they fall”.
I believe that the mistake made by 32Red is the way the communicated this, and other changes.
They are still a very good and trustworthy casino and I see no reason to close my account.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
:notworthy
How easy it could be said. Here we have had a discussion for 33 pages.
Don't show up so late the next time please
:notworthy
How easy it could be said. Here we have had a discussion for 33 pages.
Don't show up so late the next time please
Thats not actually the short version sarah.
@32red Don't piss on our backs and tell us its raining - thats the short version
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
True, but that's so short that people like me wouldn't understand the whole message.
A nice diplomatic and true post are doing wonder. Try sometime
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
With respect I could say the same to you regarding this thread?
If you don't like it, don't visit it. IMO it should stay available so any forthcoming victims of the policies can add their tales of woe, rather than starting, yes! another new thread....
Conclusions are fluid, and if somebody rang up the UKGC also quoting other paragraphs which mention 'immediate' and 'no third party' and asked the same question Harry did, mightn't the answer be different?
Paul, if you call removing your custom from a site due to shortcomings in CS or silly mistakes 'throwing out the toys' sobeit. Some people are willing to soak up the BS, some ain't. I won't as there are plenty of others who will do it right. They get my custom. On a larger scale these actions are what get us better service and improvements in most industries. Except gambling it seems.
P.P.S Vinyl - I had to laugh at your post, bemoaning the 'nanny state' and use of lawyers when in nearly every other post you advise people to seek resolution through the court system. Them bleeding lawyers, eh?
There is a difference between suing for a frivolous thing and suing because you have been shafted by a bigger fish through the use of questionable and even rogue business practice. For example, if one orders a coffee, one would expect to receive a HOT drink. On the other hand, if someone is promised something in exchange for their money, and after you have handed it over the other party decides to renege on the deal because it's a big company with deep pockets vs your own limited ability to afford legal advice, you should bring the same level of pressure to bear so that they too "learn the lesson" that bullies can sometimes be beaten.
One problem with the "frivolous lawsuit" in the US is the suing for ridiculous amounts for what is a minor incident, such as suing McDonalds for a 6 figure sum because you spilt your own coffee over yourself and it hurt. It may well be right to expect proportionate compensation, such as the offer of another drink by staff, and perhaps waiving the bill for that entire meal, but this is a long way from a million dollars.
In the UK claims process, such frivolity is more limited. If one sues a company, one merely expects to be placed back in the position one would have been in had the company honoured it's side of the bargain. In the case of suing a casino, you are really only asking for your own money, money you won fair & square, but that the casino is trying to wriggle out of paying for some vague reason, rather than a clear violation of the terms. If a casino confiscates £8K, you are likely to win £8K + statutory interest, and possibly a sum to cover the actual costs of dealing with the matter. You would not expect to be awarded £1 million.
However, if you lose £8K in a casino that you know damn well is unreachable through the courts, and is listed as rogue on numerous sites, but threw caution to the wind because it offered a 10000% bonus, then this is a case where you had all the necessary information at your disposal to reach a conclusion that extracting a win might not be so easy. Part of the problem with the state nannying is that people take the casino's word for it when they make claims like "No 1 on the web", and expect that some regulator somewhere is making sure it behaves itself when it comes to paying out winnings. However, if one hasn't been nannied, one might engage the "too good to be true" circuits upon seeing a 10000% bonus on offer, and consider that there must be a huge sting somewhere just waiting to get the hapless player who succumbs to the lure.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
A community is there to protect its weakest members. If that is not the case, it can't call itself a community!!!!
So much for the comments about self-control, players should restrain themselves etc etc. Either we are a community and fight even for the weakest members or we are just not worth being called a community/forum (you name it).
I don't know how long you all have been playing online, so if you know already what i am going to write now then skip my post.
1. When online gaming became mainstream there was no player protection whatsoever. The websites did not even mention RG. See 32RED's Screenshot 1 from 2002. Nobody cared whether a player was losing his house or livelihood, the casinos the least, they took everybody on just to increase their share in an exploding market.
2. At some point in 2007 online operators where forced by law/regulation/guidelines (call it what you want) to implement some RG measures, first time SE was offered, giving problem gamblers some control, at least when they wanted to stop. See Screenshot 2+3.
3. Only a few years later it probably showed in studies/research/debt defaults rising (list not complete) that the RG measures are not sufficient. Hence, TAB, Deposit limits etc were introduced, giving the player more control over his gambling, see Screenshot 4.
4. As regulation evolved players were given even more control over their gambling with the peak that both, SE and TAB, are available online and can be self-set at any time, see Screenshot 5.
With their latest changes 32RED has taken that control, which needed more than 14 years to be implemented by the regulatory bodies (and believe me there was certainly plenty of lobbying from the gambling industry against it), completely out of the hands of the player and put themselves into the acting position.
So what is the conclusion to this:
In 14 years casino operators have not changed. They didn't care then about players and they don't do today. All the RG stuff is a necessary evil Gaming Commissions or other regulatory bodies have forced on to them. As little as necessary is done and as much as possible avoided!!!
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2
Screenshot 3
Screenshot 4
Screenshot 5
So much for the comments about self-control, players should restrain themselves etc etc. Either we are a community and fight even for the weakest members or we are just not worth being called a community/forum (you name it).
I don't know how long you all have been playing online, so if you know already what i am going to write now then skip my post.
1. When online gaming became mainstream there was no player protection whatsoever. The websites did not even mention RG. See 32RED's Screenshot 1 from 2002. Nobody cared whether a player was losing his house or livelihood, the casinos the least, they took everybody on just to increase their share in an exploding market.
2. At some point in 2007 online operators where forced by law/regulation/guidelines (call it what you want) to implement some RG measures, first time SE was offered, giving problem gamblers some control, at least when they wanted to stop. See Screenshot 2+3.
3. Only a few years later it probably showed in studies/research/debt defaults rising (list not complete) that the RG measures are not sufficient. Hence, TAB, Deposit limits etc were introduced, giving the player more control over his gambling, see Screenshot 4.
4. As regulation evolved players were given even more control over their gambling with the peak that both, SE and TAB, are available online and can be self-set at any time, see Screenshot 5.
With their latest changes 32RED has taken that control, which needed more than 14 years to be implemented by the regulatory bodies (and believe me there was certainly plenty of lobbying from the gambling industry against it), completely out of the hands of the player and put themselves into the acting position.
So what is the conclusion to this:
In 14 years casino operators have not changed. They didn't care then about players and they don't do today. All the RG stuff is a necessary evil Gaming Commissions or other regulatory bodies have forced on to them. As little as necessary is done and as much as possible avoided!!!
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2
Screenshot 3
Screenshot 4
Screenshot 5
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Good compared to whom? Trustworthy - they won't trust their players to take their own RG decisions? There was no mistake - they simply didn't bother to communicate until Harry? spotted it. They are nowhere near as 'big' as Hills or Coral. At Coral you get quick withdrawals and even then you have the self-set options.
Why can't some see the wood for the trees? Comparisons are hard because what they've done is exceptional. It's simply a very bad, greed-orientated move. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do people think it wasn't announced? It's like listening to Liverpool supporters bleating on about the 'glory days' when they were the best team in Europe and we grant them an audience and politely don't mention the fact that they are now mid-table mediocrity and will continue to be. Things change.
The 'higher they are the harder they fall'? Take a check of the CM ratings please people! They haven't been anywhere near the highest sites for a considerable time. Those days are long gone. They are only just in the top 30 accredited now, 28th. to be precise, and falling like a stone. Yes, there are 27 casinos doing it better. I sincerely wish people would get it in perspective at just how badly things are going from the players' point of view. The ratings don't lie; they're sliding out of the charts quicker than an X-Factor cover version.
What does that tell you? Once boasting of all their CM accomplishments and yet happy to see themselves in freefall in front of us all, it tells me the CM community and especially their ratings don't matter to them any more. And now meddling with the accepted application of RG, I'm sure that'll help them back up the ratings....
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Location
- Quebec , Canada
If MAXD confirm that i should PAB, i will do for sure! I have nothing to hide. What i say is what happened. I can provide screenshot also of the hour the e-mail was sent and the hour 32red reply. I don't have the first chat asking to TAB..(and the girl tell me to sent the e-mail etc) but MAXD & Mark can easily found it i guess. Yes mistake are from me to play all back... However, if in the first chat requesting TAB If i've rather asked to SE..My account had been blocked on the
fields but TAB take few hour..
fields but TAB take few hour..
There went my final post but need to respond.
The only time I know was what Mark stated that there had been one request for a break and that had been done after 19 minutes.
I haven't heard about any other. Just one guy who claimed he had asked for it, but later he said they were playing with words. They apparently didn't understand what he wanted, or he had asked for something else. I don't know and noone of us does. That's why I wanted him to PAB, just to make it clear what happened.
It's so easy to believe what a player say but it's rare that we get to hear the whole truth.
I never judge anyone but I don't believe everything they say. Sometimes I can believe the casino more because they are just doing their jobs, while a player maybe have lost and are angry. Like in a bar I believe the bartender more than the drunk person.
It's also important here to treat even the casinos and reps with respect. What would this place be without them? Think about that for a moment.
Maybe 32Red is bigger now, but they are still here. They are still dealing with issues. It's still a give and take relationship. It would be good if we could keep that and keep them here.
@Nate
I agree, and I've stated that so many times. You have no idea how much I fought with them to allow people to flush. It didn't help, nothing we have said helped.
I accepted and moved on. I still don't like it. Just so you know and they know definately
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Location
- Ontario
Simon, I feel for you, I truly do. I've said for years it's worse when you are winning.
I would encourage you to write the UKGC with your story. Like myself, you are not afforded their protection, but hopefully it will illustrate why they need to introduce a timeframe for the TAB, rather than a theorhetical example.
One thing that has bothered me from early in this thread is what the appropriate use of the TAB function is, since using it to protect yourself from reversing a withdrawal doesn't seem to be it?
It's a number of years ago now, but I took a break from one of my favourite casinos one spring because I was spending too much time and I needed to get the garden done. Then it rained one day and I was so bored they relented and let me return to play, but not deposit. I had to wait 72 hours even to return to the tourneys. They even offered me the option of excluding my play during daylight hours (or after the bar closes, if that's your issue).
Over the Easter weekend, I had a withdrawal at 32Red, on the Friday I think. I didn't TAB, I did make a deposit on the Saturday, and it took me first to reverse withdrawal page, then asked me again if I wanted to reverse rather than deposit.
In some fairness, come Sunday, although the withdrawal was not processed, it was no longer reversible in the cashier. I know from past experience if it's not yet been processed though, support would have did that for me. I closed the casino and did something else.
There must be a reason the TAB is under the UKGC's Responsible Gambling section other than the need to get the gardening done.
I would encourage you to write the UKGC with your story. Like myself, you are not afforded their protection, but hopefully it will illustrate why they need to introduce a timeframe for the TAB, rather than a theorhetical example.
One thing that has bothered me from early in this thread is what the appropriate use of the TAB function is, since using it to protect yourself from reversing a withdrawal doesn't seem to be it?
It's a number of years ago now, but I took a break from one of my favourite casinos one spring because I was spending too much time and I needed to get the garden done. Then it rained one day and I was so bored they relented and let me return to play, but not deposit. I had to wait 72 hours even to return to the tourneys. They even offered me the option of excluding my play during daylight hours (or after the bar closes, if that's your issue).
Over the Easter weekend, I had a withdrawal at 32Red, on the Friday I think. I didn't TAB, I did make a deposit on the Saturday, and it took me first to reverse withdrawal page, then asked me again if I wanted to reverse rather than deposit.
In some fairness, come Sunday, although the withdrawal was not processed, it was no longer reversible in the cashier. I know from past experience if it's not yet been processed though, support would have did that for me. I closed the casino and did something else.
There must be a reason the TAB is under the UKGC's Responsible Gambling section other than the need to get the gardening done.
"One thing that has bothered me from early in this thread is what the appropriate use of the TAB function is, since using it to protect yourself from reversing a withdrawal doesn't seem to be it?"
I don't believe that it can't be used for that purpose and so far the only people i have seen promote that are 32red. I have asked for clarification, hopefully it will not be too long in coming
I don't believe that it can't be used for that purpose and so far the only people i have seen promote that are 32red. I have asked for clarification, hopefully it will not be too long in coming
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Location
- Quebec , Canada
All blame falls to me, i accept. No need to be angry against me..
It's rather the case that i've asked to TAB to get my account locked...and the CS tell me to send an email (she know i want my account locked).
But she didn't tell me that if i SE... my account should be locked with no delay.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Location
- Quebec , Canada
There went my final post but need to respond.
The only time I know was what Mark stated that there had been one request for a break and that had been done after 19 minutes.
I haven't heard about any other. Just one guy who claimed he had asked for it, but later he said they were playing with words. They apparently didn't understand what he wanted, or he had asked for something else. I don't know and noone of us does. That's why I wanted him to PAB, just to make it clear what happened.
It's so easy to believe what a player say but it's rare that we get to hear the whole truth.
I never judge anyone but I don't believe everything they say. Sometimes I can believe the casino more because they are just doing their jobs, while a player maybe have lost and are angry. Like in a bar I believe the bartender more than the drunk person.
It's also important here to treat even the casinos and reps with respect. What would this place be without them? Think about that for a moment.
Maybe 32Red is bigger now, but they are still here. They are still dealing with issues. It's still a give and take relationship. It would be good if we could keep that and keep them here.
@Nate
I agree, and I've stated that so many times. You have no idea how much I fought with them to allow people to flush. It didn't help, nothing we have said helped.
I accepted and moved on. I still don't like it. Just so you know and they know definately
Apparently 19 mins did not apply to me .. rather 2h58
In addition , I asked the live chat take a break and they have not set in the fields..
You say : I never judge anyone but I don't believe everything they say
Can you please explain me what you don't believe as i don't understand...
the story is simple , I won .. withdrew my winnings . Go live chat asked to take a break .. the girl knowing very well that I wanted my account locked (if no why TAB?) . In the past it took me 2 minutes .. after having played all back .. going back to chat to ask why my account is still open... i want it closed.. and the guys closed it right away!
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
Sarah, Mark did not state there was just one. He actually said that the shortest one requested was for 1 week and that was actioned within 19 minutes of receiving the request, see excerpt from Mark's post below.
Hence, there could have been 2 or 100 or 1000. We don't know.
Think there was probably more than one, self exclusion is a growth industry!
(sorry about the bad copy job but 185,459 SE for current period , online casino industry)Regulated under the Gambling Act 2005 Regulated under the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014
Apr 2010-Mar 2011 Apr 2011-Mar 2012 Apr 2012-Mar 2013 Apr 2013-
Mar 2014 Apr 2014-Oct 2014 Nov 2014-
Mar 2015
New self-exclusions 33,953 34,321 37,746 69,405 94,326 185,459
Known breaches of self-exclusion 2,533 2,317 2,031 2,123 1,189 13,096
Number of individuals who cancelled their self-exclusion after minimum exclusion period 1,581 1,508 1,984 3,799 2,296 16,884
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Location
- Eurozone
You're absolutely right Harry, in a true community a user's problem is the problem of all, I am very sorry that some posts,
we should give support to users who have problems with the casino, instead read messages that, besides not having any connection
with the discussion in question, they are intended to promote the casino.
When a user has a problem, and it is verified that there should be no contrary opinions, it is an objective fact.
All this is really sad.
Cheers.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2014
- Location
- england
I just find that alot of money so it angers me when someone loses that much, Not really directly angry at you, im sure you feel sick as anything.
It doesn't suprise me they wasn't keen to close it.
Think there was probably more than one, self exclusion is a growth industry!
Regulated under the Gambling Act 2005 Regulated under the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014
Apr 2010-Mar 2011 Apr 2011-Mar 2012 Apr 2012-Mar 2013 Apr 2013-
Mar 2014 Apr 2014-Oct 2014 Nov 2014-
Mar 2015
New self-exclusions 33,953 34,321 37,746 69,405 94,326 185,459
Known breaches of self-exclusion 2,533 2,317 2,031 2,123 1,189 13,096
Number of individuals who cancelled their self-exclusion after minimum exclusion period 1,581 1,508 1,984 3,799 2,296 16,884
Whoa! 185,459 is a lot of exclusions - no wonder the operators are noting it as an impact on their numbers.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Location
- Sweden
You can't just look at a graph in an Annual Report. That is to simplify to much. Look at the actual numbers. Here you can see that the real EBITDA has actually fallen and that their profit has gone from £3,2 million to £0,9 million.......'nuff said!!!
For the year ended 31 December 2015
Notes
2015
£
2014*
£
Net gaming revenue 3 48,660,355 32,088,021
Cost of sales (35,843,110) (21,172,561)
Gross Profit 12,817,245 10,915,460
Administrative expenses (7,581,169) (5,492,483)
EBITDA before share option costs and exceptional items 5,236,076 5,422,977
Share option costs (555,981) (392,691)
Depreciation and amortisation (2,687,549) (1,486,027)
Loss on impairment 9 (356,188) –
Operating profit before exceptional items 2 1,636,358 3,544,259
Exceptional items 4 (587,322) (150,000)
Operating profit after exceptional items 1,049,036 3,394,259
Finance income 5 22,206 11,519
Profit on ordinary activities before taxation 1,071,242 3,405,778
Tax on ordinary activities 8 (106,944) (127,082)
Profit and total comprehensive income for the year 964,298 3,278,696
Earnings per share (p)
Basic 6 1.23 p 4.49 p
Diluted 6 1.14 p 4.20 p
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
You can't just look at a graph in an Annual Report. That is to simplify to much. Look at the actual numbers. Here you can see that the real EBITDA has actually fallen and that their profit has gone from £3,2 million to £0,9 million.......'nuff said!!!
Matti, i was merely highlighting to you what 32RED stated in their reports with regards to an increased EBITDA despite the POCT. And as you can see they kept the POCT separately from the EBITDA.
The biggest chunk deducted from their EBITDA after POCT is "Depreciation and Amortization" which comes from the acquisition of Roxy Palace, hence little to do with their overall profitability as that was a strategic investment.
Without that their net profit 2015 compared to 2014 would have risen by appr. the same rate as the EBITDA or at least stayed at a similar level as 2014, too lazy to go through the report again and calculate that exactly.
EDIT: However, i am in no position nor a qualified accountant to question or evaluate a company's strategy, profitability etc. Hence, i think it is better to concentrate on the actual reasons for this thread.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
And i assume those are just the numbers from the UKGC. Worldwide the number is then probably a multiple of that figure.
Understandably, that would hurt the bottom line of any business/industry.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
Think there was probably more than one, self exclusion is a growth industry!
Regulated under the Gambling Act 2005 Regulated under the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014
Apr 2010-Mar 2011 Apr 2011-Mar 2012 Apr 2012-Mar 2013 Apr 2013-
Mar 2014 Apr 2014-Oct 2014 Nov 2014-
Mar 2015
New self-exclusions 33,953 34,321 37,746 69,405 94,326 185,459
Known breaches of self-exclusion 2,533 2,317 2,031 2,123 1,189 13,096
Number of individuals who cancelled their self-exclusion after minimum exclusion period 1,581 1,508 1,984 3,799 2,296 16,884
Those figures are a little creepy and just gives me more questions. The last year isn't in there so I guess that's a lot more.
I wonder how many of those who actually new what the word SE ment, and was TAB included?
Was it the same persons who did it at different places...and over and over again?
It's easier now since you can just do one click, so how many did it like many in here do, out of anger over CS, over losing or because they won and didn't want to give it back?
For how long was each SE?
How many of those wanted to quit playing?
I wish I never saw those numbers, but yes, it has clearly become a problem.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Location
- Sweden
Fair enough.....
I didn't say it was a mistake. I said they probably felt they needed to do this to increase their profit. I'm not defending their decision. Just telling what I believe to be the reason.
When I joined CM two years ago they were ranked No1 with a 9,4. In all threads they were put on a pedistal and praised by all members here. Since then they have been on a downhill path and with this thread they are even accelerating this trend. I think "the higher they are........" is ok to use in this case.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
Sarah, gambling has become a modern day problem, that is true.
But you also have to put that in prospective with the amount of available online casino websites which has risen in 2015 in the UK alone to a staggering 719 sites from 427 operators, see Screenshot from the UKGC website (2015 report).
Now take problem gamblers who have probably registered with a high percentage of those 719 available sites, but let's say just an average 100 casino accounts for easy calculation. If they decide to turn their life around and stop gambling then they will logically SE from all those sites/accounts they registered with.
185,459 SE's ./. 100 = 18,546 gamblers executed and SE from Nov 2014 - Mar 2015, of those 16.884 cancelled their SE after the minimum exclusion period (which is 6 months).
Hence, the real number of permanently or for a longer period SE-ed players is much lower.
My calculation, i stand to be corrected though
Last edited:
Self-exclusions recorded by operators
The number of people who have self-excluded and the number of people who have cancelled their self-exclusion may be lower than these figures as individuals may have self-excluded from more than one site or operator and therefore been counted more than once. The number of breaches represents the number of separate incidents, rather than the number of individuals.
Yes it must be a major headache for the industry but the rules are in place and that is that. If its easier to do maybe people are just exercising their right to do it more freely and if they won and didn't wish to give it back fair play to them.When they make it exclude at one exclude at all (2017 i think) its going to become an even bigger headache. Its not for anyone else to judge why someone else makes a free decision, after all it only takes a second to put an x on a voting slip and that decides governments which can impact on our whole world.
Attachments
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
The question remains if they really are problem gamblers though.
Just look at this thread. Several, you included, SE'd from 32Red.
You will be listed as problem gamblers in their report, and you won't open your accounts again.
I will continue to ask people not to self exclude until they feel gambling have become a problem.
In that case lets call them "gamblers with a problem" and that will cover all aspects of why people SE.
- Status
