WARNING Affiliates Who Target Problem Gamblers

[bamberfishcake]

This is clearly an uphill struggle and while it is obvious you will never eradicate the problem fully, to accept defeat will allow more power to them and open up the availability.

If we keep this thread going at least some of us will remain informed.

In any case, grateful for the work and effort.

It is clear some casinos are taking this seriously as Casumo, no small player, are still listening and are interested and taking action. Kudos to you Casumo - clearly a casino showing good intent.

For an average player all of this talk of affiliates and parent companies is a little unclear.

A list of casinos which are not taking action would be good for me so I can display what little power i have by picking where to deposit.

I take it none of the casinos in question are on the recommended CM list?

 

[ThePOGG]

Thank you for that Duncan, very well written. Although I can guess some, is there any reason you can't name and shame the programmes who didn't care?

Other than the list being the height of a professional basketball player?

The truth is that we got a broadly positive response from the partners we worked with at the time this all came to light. We have more sway and expected high standards from those programs we rated highly. Of those programs only three told us that they intended to keep working with the aff in question - Playzee, ShadowBet and Videoslots. We have removed links to all three of these programs.

When we extended our contacts beyond those we were working with the response was flat disinterest for the most part. You can see in previous posts who we contacted and who took action. If a name doesn't appear on the who took action list, you can guess what the response was.

TP

 

[colinsunderland]

I'm quite surprised at Videoslots, I reported a couple of affiliates back when Dan was the rep here for things and they were removed immediately. Just shows how money grabbing they are now.

 

[bamberfishcake]

I'm quite surprised at Videoslots, I reported a couple of affiliates back when Dan was the rep here for things and they were removed immediately. Just shows how money grabbing they are now.

Thanks @ThePOGG for dumbing it down for me.

I appreciate and understand what you say about the list.

Im surprised at Videoslots also. Its where I play most damn it.

 

[slotter999]

@ThePOGG I'll use videoslots as an example as I don't really know the others.

Does removing their links mean you, as an affiliate, will now stop promoting that casino?

If the answer is yes - do you know of any other affiliates that have severed links with videoslots for the same reason as you or do you stand alone on this one?

It does feel to me that there is definitely a part for affiliates to play in this whole saga as they could follow your example. I strongly doubt that will happen though - I think money is just too much of a motivator Vs taking any moral stance.

Your actions are to be commended though - you proved through actions and not words what this whole saga means to @ThePOGG and can legitimately take the moral high ground.

 

[dunover]

I think ultimately the best course of action would be to send a dossier about this whole affair and of operators doing business with these rogue affiliates to the UKGC. Yeah, we're only one market but we are one with power to heavily penalise financially if necessary.

Apologies if such a move is already in motion.

 

[colinsunderland]

I have a feeling if multiple people sent complaints to the UKGC and the ASA about the legitimate casinos working with these rogue affiliates, they may actually take action against them. I think it would quite easily be argued that being listed on a site with 'how to get round gamstop' pages, falls foul of the socially responsible advertising rules in place.

I may have time this week to knock something up that a few of us could send if anyones up for it.

 

[Nicola]

I think I have worked out what affiliate site we are talking about here.

They hold such a high position on the search engines under not just irresponsible terms but also highly searched generic terms. They must be making a fortune, so you can see why they ain't gonna stop.

Some governments block access to illegal gambling sites, maybe the UKGC could start doing that here.

 

[colinsunderland]

I think I have worked out what affiliate site we are talking about here.

They hold such a high position on the search engines under not just irresponsible terms but also highly searched generic terms. They must be making a fortune, so you can see why they ain't gonna stop.

Some governments block access to illegal gambling sites, maybe the UKGC could start doing that here.

Good in theory, but impossible to implement. The premier league has been IP blocking for years but I can find links to matches, IPTV services, kodi add on, all streaming all the games within minutes.
Same as the pirate bay, had authorities all over the world blocking it, takes minutes to circumvent anything they do.

 

[dionysus]

Good in theory, but impossible to implement. The premier league has been IP blocking for years but I can find links to matches, IPTV services, kodi add on, all streaming all the games within minutes.
Same as the pirate bay, had authorities all over the world blocking it, takes minutes to circumvent anything they do.

Except for recent news, Canada has been pretty much for net neutrality; and some providers (internet) here flat our refused to kowtow (though some tow the line)
But as you say, there's always a workaround

 

[colinsunderland]

Except for recent news, Canada has been pretty much for net neutrality; and some providers (internet) here flat our refused to kowtow (though some tow the line)
But as you say, there's always a workaround

A lot here refuse to do anything, but the premier league just get a court order forcing them too. They even have 'floating' orders now, so the PL can block sites in minutes and still doesn't work.

 

[mack341]

The best way to block these sites, I would've thought, is to block their ability to take payments from uk citizens.

Bitcoin might be difficult, but maybe the other e-wallets etc.. could be prevented from facilitating these transactions if the govt will is there to make it illegal. Otherwise the payment firms are helping to undermine and circumvent the gamstop system?

 

[colinsunderland]

The best way to block these sites, I would've thought, is to block their ability to take payments from uk citizens.

Bitcoin might be difficult, but maybe the other e-wallets etc.. could be prevented from facilitating these transactions if the govt will is there to make it illegal. Otherwise the payment firms are helping to undermine and circumvent the gamstop system?

Totally agree, but then you would get third parties set up to take the payments for the casinos to get round it. Having said that, the more obstacles the more chance people will give up

 

[dunover]

The best way to block these sites, I would've thought, is to block their ability to take payments from uk citizens.

Bitcoin might be difficult, but maybe the other e-wallets etc.. could be prevented from facilitating these transactions if the govt will is there to make it illegal. Otherwise the payment firms are helping to undermine and circumvent the gamstop system?

I believe the webwallets like Neteller and Skrill already do so. We said this years ago, that cut the blood off from the parasite and it moves on or dies. Check out the recent thread where one UK player was shafted by one of those 1668/JAZ sites and found his card had Rouble transactions and one to some kind of Chinese textile company or something, plus the fees that went with them. So the crooks are already disguising themselves as non-gambling transactions to insure against blocks and subsequent player chargebacks.

 

[mack341]

I wonder what the chargeback legal situation is for one of these 1668/jaz sites, if you've used a debit card and been scammed, effectively visa ( or mastercard etc..) have let the scammers act as one of their merchants?

Or are most people using e-wallets etc..these days

Edit: The real, long term answer is probably greater regulation of the casinos operating from curacao (and any of the other less reputable areas) it could be done if the will is there. Apparently curacao citizens are EU citizens, so that is something to ponder too. Why should these dodgy casinos be just allowed to rip people off, and if those people are already struggling with serious addiction issues, it's doubly worse.

 

[ThePOGG]

@ThePOGG I'll use videoslots as an example as I don't really know the others.

Does removing their links mean you, as an affiliate, will now stop promoting that casino?

If the answer is yes - do you know of any other affiliates that have severed links with videoslots for the same reason as you or do you stand alone on this one?

Yes, removing links means that we are no longer sending traffic to these operators. I'm not aware of other affiliates that have take these steps but that does not mean none have.

I agree, affiliates could make a difference. But bluntly put - and I will preface this by saying that this is a general statement and not applicable to every affiliate - affiliates have a well earned reputation for being utterly ethic-less, moral vacuums. Look at how these sites are proliferating.

There's a good reason that affiliate advertising keeps getting operators in trouble and this issue is a perfect example of that.

TP

 

[Guntis]

Hey, guys, I don't understand how come accredited casinos still working with affiliates sites like casinomir?

From their .com site casino logos were removed but they are still listed on https:// casinomir.com/ja/ (Japanese version).

 

[ThePOGG]

Regarding shutting 'these sites' down via banking etc - all the major regulators are involved with the banking sector to try and shut the payment processors that are working with unlicensed operators down as quickly as possible. But the fundamental truth is that this is a near impossible job. These companies are of a disposable nature. They are constantly opening up and shutting down as they are identified. And yes, they are basically engaged in money laundering, processing transactions under misleading descriptors.

The US government has been trying to shut the black market down since 2006 without any real success. Australia's gone down the same road and is now experiencing the same issues. The UK and Sweden have chosen the regulatory path rather than prohibition, but overheads for operating legitimately in these markets are massive meaning that the black market can simply afford to offer far more attractive honey trap bonuses and throw a lot more money at affiliates.

Working with payment providers is part of an overall approach, but it is no magic bullet.

TP

 

[colinsunderland]

Yes, removing links means that we are no longer sending traffic to these operators. I'm not aware of other affiliates that have take these steps but that does not mean none have.

I agree, affiliates could make a difference. But bluntly put - and I will preface this by saying that this is a general statement and not applicable to every affiliate - affiliates have a well earned reputation for being utterly ethic-less, moral vacuums. Look at how these sites are proliferating.

There's a good reason that affiliate advertising keeps getting operators in trouble and this issue is a perfect example of that.

TP

I removed a couple I had listed (but don't promote 100's so that was all to remove) and Dunover said he would remove any still being promoted after the 1st of one month (October?) Not sure about any others.

 

[dunover]

Ultimately the fate of ethical and decent affiliates will be no different to that of the rogue ones if regulators get involved, which they will inevitably - unless the operators can demonstrate they are on top of it all before it happens, which alas seems not to be the case overall.

 

[ThePOGG]

Hey, guys, I don't understand how come accredited casinos still working with affiliates sites like casinomir?

From their .com site casino logos were removed but they are still listed on https:// casinomir.com/ja/ (Japanese version).

This is exactly what has me so utterly defeated on this issue. Many operators have continued working with these affs and have just asked to be removed in certain markets while representing that they understand how significant this activity has been and have acted to stop it. So when you go to regional variants you'll find they're still on there. Monitoring just the main sites is a significant workload in itself. Identifying all the regional variants and monitoring them all is at least a full time job. We couldn't afford to put someone on this full time.

Operators on these sites should be utterly ashamed, but 'faux outrage' would be a fair descriptor for those who made a big issue of acting to distance themselves from these affiliates in the UK and other closely watched markets yet still turn up on these sites on other regional variants.

TP

 

[dunover]

I removed a couple I had listed (but don't promote 100's so that was all to remove) and Dunover said he would remove any still being promoted after the 1st of one month (October?) Not sure about any others.

Yep, I did say that and I stand by it - the issue wasn't confirmed absolutely until now although thePOGG did tell me a couple of weeks back in a private chat that those three were still problematic and not likely to reverse their decision. Now that's not in doubt, I am right now marking them on the casino csv file as 'excluded' so within 24 hours those three should be no longer visible on FPC. Thanks for reminding me, thanks to thePOGG for confirming.

 

[colinsunderland]

I personally think any casino found to be working with these operators, should be told then tossed in the rogue pit if they continue to do so, even on foreign sites, as that shows they don't care. Thats giving them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't actually know beforehand, which I find hard to believe considering how the affiliate programmes tell us constantly how they are monitoring our sites for the slightest breach in ASA guidelines.

 

[colinsunderland]

Yep, I did say that and I stand by it - the issue wasn't confirmed absolutely until now although thePOGG did tell me a couple of weeks back in a private chat that those three were still problematic and not likely to reverse their decision. Now that's not in doubt, I am right now marking them on the casino csv file as 'excluded' so within 24 hours those three should be no longer visible on FPC. Thanks for reminding me, thanks to thePOGG for confirming.

I had a quick look at your site and couldn't see any I noticed, so thought you already had tbh. Do you not think its a little misleading displaying game RTP's then promoting casinos running them at far lower levels though? Maybe change the game page to the range rather than a fixed rtp?

 

[dunover]

I had a quick look at your site and couldn't see any I noticed, so thought you already had tbh. Do you not think its a little misleading displaying game RTP's then promoting casinos running them at far lower levels though? Maybe change the game page to the range rather than a fixed rtp?

And here is the heading text on the 'slot rtp finder main page':

"…..and is set by the developer but in some cases the online casino can request a lower RTP. Play’n Go and IGT for example offer a range to their customers, but if you’re in the UK the RTP figure of the slot you are playing must be visible in the game rules.
Most online casino slot games will be in the 94-97% range with 96-96.50% being the norm. The figures shown are factory RTP’s which means the maximum the developer provides and is normally what you’ll get unless the casino has a lower version so again, check the game rules. This RTP can be allocated differently, for example 70% to the base game and 26% to the free spins or other...."

I have actually repeated the point just to make it even clearer - the objective of the page is informational and to give viewers the names of casinos offering the software and factory RTP, which the viewer is informed both to check and where to see it.

The bottom of each page says something along the lines of (green bar) UKGC or reputable casinos with xxxx games, it doesn't tell the viewer the anywhere that the factory RTP is guaranteed, in fact again the opposite I quoted above.

The ranges are there if providers actually give them like IGT do on many games, like Netent have with the recent Ozzy slot for example. But how can I know how far under the factory RTP a game could offer say to a player outside the UK, where the casino may not be obliged to state it under that jurisdiction? This info is known to the casino's non-UK operation and to the developer, not me. So I won't be speculating and no, I don't think it's misleading. I could offer information about Heinz Baked Beans and where to buy them, but I am not a price comparison site and can't possibly keep check on all the shops which sell them and the price they offer on any particular day! Gimme a break man!