WARNING Affiliates Who Target Problem Gamblers

[colinsunderland]

yeah I wasn't having a go, just making a suggestion.

 

[Scott1baird]

Correct me if I'm wrong, there are still credited casinos letting rouge affiliate sites use there links?
If so from what I'm reading here it's generally accepted that they be asked to cut links to said affiliate sites, but as there is still money to be made some of the casinos have said they will but didn't or didn't even respond?
So if money talks wouldn't this be the time at the Malta affiliate convention for all the proper affiliates to stand up and tell these casinos if they do not stop the links with rogue sites then we as proper affiliates will remove you links from ours...... There is power in numbers.

 

[ThePOGG]

There's a disconnect here between reality and public perception of what's going on.

The site in question is huge in Search Engine Optomisation terms. To put this is perspective - there's a half dozen affiliates participating in this conversation - if you combined the traffic that all of these participants receive, and I'm including CM and TP, you would still likely fall far short of this single site.

To try and give readers something that they can visualise here's some ranking figures from ThePOGG.com:

I've highlighted 4 important pieces of information.

Firstly the top left red arrow - this data has been filtered to show only ranking 1-5. Anything below that is not included (and doesn't get much traffic).

Directly below that you can see the number of search results we turn up in the top 5 for each country.

On the far right you can see the position we turn up in.

And in the middle you can see the volume of people searching for this term. The table has been filtered to show the terms with the biggest number of people searching for them at the top.



Here's similar data for Casinomeister:

You can see that they turn up for less search terms (arrow on the left) than ThePOGG, but those search terms have high volumes of traffic and they rank higher for them.


And here's the affiliate being discussed:

They turn up in the top 5 for around 2.5x as many terms as CM and TP combined. The volume of traffic searching just for the their top term is greater than the volume of searches for all of the results I showed for CM and TP combined. It is also a far more targeted term that is of a high value (compared with 'cafe casino review' who we don't work with and 'red queen casino' who have been closed for some time now).

Most readers here would consider CM and TP to be well known entities within this industry. That may be true, but we are far from powerhouses in terms of our ability to drive traffic. Both sites sacrifice massive amounts of revenue to try and work in an honest fashion. But there is a flip side to having integrity. And that is that large swathes of the industry are really only interested in an affiliate's ability to drive traffic. This affiliate has this in buckets. If the 'right thing' is for operators to terminate their relationship with this site and they're not inclined to do the right thing by themselves, then it comes down to how concerned the operator are about losing us as a partner. Our leverage, even if we were to get a group of affiliates working together, is minimal. We don't have the traffic to force anyone's hand.

TP



P.S. And this site would still come behind AskGamblers by a significant distance I would reckon.

 

[dunover]

Crikey! That's a real kick in the balls for integrity.

 

[mack341]

I must admit I've never heard of that site and with a name like that would feel it was likely dodgy

No surprise the company address seems to be somewhere on the island of curacao

edit: are they getting the extra traffic through some sort of deal with the search engine for a higher placing in results?

 

[ThePOGG]

edit: are they getting the extra traffic through some sort of deal with the search engine for a higher placing in results?

They - like all of the big affiliates - engage a large amount of resources in getting other websites to link to them. They also bring in Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) services to look at structuring their content and site to ensure that the search engines like it and know the best terms to rank it for.

If you're really interested you can learn more about SEO here -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

TP

P.S. We have to do the same btw. Diverting resources away from SEO to fund BetBlocker has resulted in our business shrinking significantly in the last 18 months.

 

[mack341]

I like the way they describe how they're funded:

Casino marketing is financed by a commission structure for the casino players sent from referral links on a page.

This means that the better you enjoy playing with our recommended casino the more money we make.


I'm not having a go at affliates but is that 2nd sentence a bit of creative licence for the newbie player who might've strayed to the 'about us' section?

I thought most deals were either a straight referral fee, a % linked to losses, or a hybrid of the two? The more my losses are at a casino the less I enjoy playing there, don't know if that makes me abnormal

 

[mack341]

They - like all of the big affiliates - engage a large amount of resources in getting other websites to link to them. They also bring in Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) services to look at structuring their content and site to ensure that the search engines like it and know the best terms to rank it for.

If you're really interested you can learn more about SEO here -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

TP

P.S. We have to do the same btw. Diverting resources away from SEO to fund BetBlocker has resulted in our business shrinking significantly in the last 18 months.

At least that is a good cause, and also has the potential to be taken up by the casino sites and help more folk in trouble. I think either ladbrokes or corals had a link to one of the blocking software programs.

I came upon your pogg site from searching for complaints, so they are a good way of driving traffic [and a good service to the player] it's a real way of finding out how certain casinos treat players in specific situations - you can learn a lot from these about a casino's ethos and values.

 

[ThePOGG]

At least that is a good cause, and also has the potential to be taken up by the casino sites and help more folk in trouble. I think either ladbrokes or corals had a link to one of the blocking software programs.

I came upon your pogg site from searching for complaints, so they are a good way of driving traffic [and a good service to the player] it's a real way of finding out how certain casinos treat players in specific situations - you can learn a lot from these about a casino's ethos and values.

All UK licensed operators are required to provide information about "blocking software" and it may shortly become a requirement for operators to provide free licenses to any excluding player. It's just a shame that at the moment so many operators are still choosing to direct players to one of the fee based services rather than BetBlocker which is free.

And I wish more players were like you and read up on the operators before they played. It would save us managing a huge number of complaints.

TP

 

[Harry_BKK]

There's a disconnect here between reality and public perception of what's going on.

The site in question is huge in Search Engine Optomisation terms. To put this is perspective - there's a half dozen affiliates participating in this conversation - if you combined the traffic that all of these participants receive, and I'm including CM and TP, you would still likely fall far short of this single site.

To try and give readers something that they can visualise here's some ranking figures from ThePOGG.com:

I've highlighted 4 important pieces of information.

Firstly the top left red arrow - this data has been filtered to show only ranking 1-5. Anything below that is not included (and doesn't get much traffic).

Directly below that you can see the number of search results we turn up in the top 5 for each country.

On the far right you can see the position we turn up in.

And in the middle you can see the volume of people searching for this term. The table has been filtered to show the terms with the biggest number of people searching for them at the top.



Here's similar data for Casinomeister:

You can see that they turn up for less search terms (arrow on the left) than ThePOGG, but those search terms have high volumes of traffic and they rank higher for them.


And here's the affiliate being discussed:

They turn up in the top 5 for around 2.5x as many terms as CM and TP combined. The volume of traffic searching just for the their top term is greater than the volume of searches for all of the results I showed for CM and TP combined. It is also a far more targeted term that is of a high value (compared with 'cafe casino review' who we don't work with and 'red queen casino' who have been closed for some time now).

Most readers here would consider CM and TP to be well known entities within this industry. That may be true, but we are far from powerhouses in terms of our ability to drive traffic. Both sites sacrifice massive amounts of revenue to try and work in an honest fashion. But there is a flip side to having integrity. And that is that large swathes of the industry are really only interested in an affiliate's ability to drive traffic. This affiliate has this in buckets. If the 'right thing' is for operators to terminate their relationship with this site and they're not inclined to do the right thing by themselves, then it comes down to how concerned the operator are about losing us as a partner. Our leverage, even if we were to get a group of affiliates working together, is minimal. We don't have the traffic to force anyone's hand.

TP



P.S. And this site would still come behind AskGamblers by a significant distance I would reckon.

Thanks for the overview, Duncan. I pulled up some results for the sites I write for and gotta admit that site has huge traffic, massive actually. And here was me thinking the numbers I am seeing were pretty good.

But to be honest, the affiliates are just the tail of the fish. As the saying goes: "the fish stinks (or rots) from the head".

Affiliates can only strive when they are supported and paid by the casino operators. The buck starts and stops there. In essence, casinos don't give a "rat's ass" how they get the traffic as long as it keeps coming. I remember one aff manager of a large group telling me once in a discussion something along the lines...... "you bring them in, the more the merrrier....our door at the front is wide open and not much less wide at the back...just keep the flow and you'll be fine".

They don't care for the player at all, never have and never will. What we see today with regards to RG is still in the stage of "window dressing", even at reputable sites. One has just to look at the fines being dished out left and right. Some might sound strange when you read the reasons but many are completely outrageous where players were allowed to deposits tens of thousands and more without a single check.

The reason I am saying it is because you just have to look at where RG is noted on a site. Every regulatory authority knows gambling is addictive, yet casinos are allowed to put a single sentence in the smallest font possible at the bottom of their site. Not at the top as you would think it should be placed and maybe prominent so people maybe click on it and read about the dangers. No, it is burried at bottom, so well that you mostly need a magnifying glass to see it. Hence, IMO, complete "window dressing".

By the way, that was the norm in the early days of online gaming. In my high times, I dropped over half a million Euro into one casino group in less than 2 years and was never asked for KYC docs, let alone SOW or AML or whatever there is today. So that is where the casino operators were at the start of the online mayhem. Changing the culture quickly is nigh on impossible. It will probably take another entire generation before those from that period have left the business (retired or otherwise) and to see the start of real change.

Don't want to sound overly negative or sarcastic, but IMO the few that raise concerns and protest (like you and us here at CM) are less than a drop in the ocean. It feels like we are fighting windmills....a lot of hot air and little result. I am pretty sure that some of the sites where casino operators terminated the affiliate contracts have in the meantime set-up new sites under different names and maybe even ownership and most of them are probably already back to business as usual, sadly.

 

[ThePOGG]

Don't want to sound overly negative or sarcastic, but IMO the few that raise concerns and protest (like you and us here at CM) are less than a drop in the ocean. It feels like we are fighting windmills....a lot of hot air and little result.

I don't think that everyone involved is engaged in faux outrage. If you got a hard time from me before for that particular comment its because in the last two years I have invested so much of myself personally, and enough to damage our business financially, in trying to get BetBlocker established that there is no question it is a raw topic for me. I genuinely believe that BetBlocker can help a large number of people who desperately need the help. That it can save families and futures. It won't be so dramatic for all our users, but if a handful of mums and dads don't split up or manage to keep their family homes in part due to the app that's a huge gain in my eyes and one that pays forward into future generations.

As this situation came to light it very quickly became apparent to me that any good that we are doing with BetBlocker is more than offset than the harm that these affiliates are doing. These terms are now drawing in big traffic:

We're not even on the front page for this search term and we have 31 clicks. Think about that and extrapolate an approximation of how many relapsing addicts are clicking on the #1 spot. And this is just one of the search term variants. To have sunk so much into helping gambling addicts only to watch other parties so casually inflict more harm than we've prevented simply because they don't care about anything beyond the money in their pockets is soul destroying.

I don't accept that I'm the only one here who feel outrage far from faux over this issue.

But setting aside the idea that everyone who works in the industry doesn't care, I do feel that many involved are engaged in PR rather than genuine efforts to protect vulnerable players. The honest truth is that your sentiment is closer to the average intent than mine. So in large part I do agree even with that comment.

And this brings me back neatly to your sentiments of negativity. This whole issue has left me feeling utterly demoralised and humiliated. Hence why it took so long to come back to. For all my bravado and grandstanding, for all the time I spent conversing with casino reps giving the most transparent of self-serving rationalisations for looking to keep money in their pocket, the sum total of what was achieved was little more than zero. We couldn't even get all of the programs that we had long standing relationships with to act on this issue. We promised a lot and delivered effectively nothing.

I agree with everything in your last post. Everything. I'll keep fighting for change as it can only be achieved where people make a positive case for it. But I'm going to need some time after this to recenter and find a positive mindset again. This one stings.

TP

 

[ThePOGG]

As far as I'm aware you are not allowed to bid on PPC terms in the UK without a UK license. Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong about that?

If I'm right then someone with a UK license is bidding on these terms and sending traffic through to the same rogue operators that are on all of the other sites (search term 'casinos not on gamstop' btw)

TP

 

[mack341]

In that recent mp's report about gambling [which the headline was the idea of a £2 stake limit[ they did say the following:

There should be increased protection against accessing unregulated gambling sites by enacting internet service provider and financial transaction blocking to unlicensed operators.

So it could be action will be taken, perhaps they don't realise parts of the affiliate sector are facilitating and promoting this access atm, and a nod to the casinos and affiliate programs/managers is required to knock it on the head forthwith.

The dodgy affiliates need the financial support from the licensed casinos otherwise they'd wither on the vine and not have the funding to get the traffic via SEO assistance.

Surely the ukgc and mga could look at this pretty quickly and issue a warning, while they then look at it in detail. Those that didn't heed the warning could expect to be fined if, subsequently, they can't show they carried out due diligence regarding their affiliate networks etc.. [I don't quite know how the system works , how many middle men there are]

Edit: maybe the management of gamstop should be in contact with the ukgc regarding this, it's undermining their program's ability to reduce gambling harm to serious addicts.

 

[ThePOGG]

So the advertiser that has placed these adverts - with very specific title tags - has provided Google with a valid operating licence number.

TP

 

[Guntis]

As far as I'm aware you are not allowed to bid on PPC terms in the UK without a UK license. Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong about that?

If I'm right then someone with a UK license is bidding on these terms and sending traffic through to the same rogue operators that are on all of the other sites (search term 'casinos not on gamstop' btw)

TP

That's insane - Sauna, steam room, gym and casinos not on gamstop...

 

[Guntis]

That's insane - Sauna, steam room, gym and casinos not on gamstop...

I bet this "trend" will be going on for a while as its an easy way for those dodgy affiliates and casino sites to make a quick money.

The main reason for this is that there is a very small competition for keywords related to "online casinos that are not on gamstop" which gives an apportunity even for new sites to get on 1st page of Google with ease.

Regarding Google ads, I can confidently say that there are "tricks" to get ads approved without providing a licence.

 

[ThePOGG]

Regarding Google ads, I can confidently say that there are "tricks" to get ads approved without providing a licence.

I think you may be right on this front. If you look at the results, two of them contain a mis-spelling on "without" (not sure how that would help) and "gamstop". To me that suggests that someone may be gaming adwords by tricking it into believing that this isn't a gambling related term, knowing that their account will be shut down soon (I'm in the process of reporting this now), but simply not caring.

I'm also drafing a complete report on everything that's been going on for the UKGC. I cannot say whether they'll take action or not but I dearly hope they do. Some of those massive fines would serve certain parties their just deserts right now.

TP

 

[News Hound]

As this situation came to light it very quickly became apparent to me that any good that we are doing with BetBlocker is more than offset than the harm that these affiliates are doing. These terms are now drawing in big traffic:

To confirm, Casino Gazette's page concerning this with the same search term as The Pogg gets similar click thrus. So those getting top results on first page, must be getting a lot of organic traffic for a variety of gamstop related terms.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I think you may be right on this front. If you look at the results, two of them contain a mis-spelling on "without" (not sure how that would help) and "gamstop". To me that suggests that someone may be gaming adwords by tricking it into believing that this isn't a gambling related term, knowing that their account will be shut down soon (I'm in the process of reporting this now), but simply not caring.

I'm also drafing a complete report on everything that's been going on for the UKGC. I cannot say whether they'll take action or not but I dearly hope they do. Some of those massive fines would serve certain parties their just deserts right now.

TP

The trick with misspellings works because Google allows some mistakes within a sequence and still rate the result. Another often used one is 0 instead of o, or simply leaving one character out. Our brain only needs the start and the end of a word to be correct as the rest is not actively read.

Just to add something, you might know it all but thought I'd better be sure.

If you register your domain via Google you get as an admin a comprehensive kit to promote your site and get it to the top spots in the shortest period possible. I know it because I used it with my own site when I still had my company (non-gambling related and shut down 3 years ago). The kit is so extensive yet super simple organized that even someone with no SEO knowledge can make sure his/her site is getting where it should be if they follow the guides to the proverbial "T".

I am no expert on SEO itself, however, I consider me somewhat versed on writing the content in such ways that it does tingle the Google algorithms for specific search words. I have written SEO content for probably 40+ companies by now, including big guns like Adidas or T-Mobile, and their editors hardly ever made changes to my pieces, hence, I assume that the text was "good to go".

Anyway, to cut a long story short, getting back to gaming. Over the years, three concepts transpired for gaming affiliates - 1,000% SEO whoring, organic development with some SEO optimized text/backlinks etc (which Google promotes heavily lately), no or little SEO tactics.

I am sure you can guess which were the best-performing sites. Employing SEO specialists costs a good chunk of money and when I see the search results for such sites I am pretty sure they do exactly that, which is again proof on how profitable that business "niche" must be.

 

[EkJR]

There are several others who have popped up.

Wellingtonpage dot com

In fact, there are loads of them now!!

 

[colinsunderland]

So it seems newcasinoway have removed the non gamstop page, but every casino I tagged are still advertising on there, alongside some of the casinos that were on the non gamstop page.

Where exactly is the incentive to stop affiliates doing this type of thing, when casinos won't cut of the revenue stream? Any of the reps feel free to answer? Please don't insult us by saying anything along the lines of its better to educate people blah blah blah, thats horseshit, as they know EXACTLY what they are dong by creating the page in the first place.

 

[mack341]

The more you look into it and think about it, this should be a priority of the ukgc to investigate. To not do so would be a failure to protect those vulnerable addicts atm looking for ways around gamstop; they may have agreed with an addiction counsellor to sign up to gamstop but are visiting these affiliate websites in question and signing up now to unlicensed/rogue casino operations.

Time is critical really, to me it's a more urgent concern than some of the other issues the ukgc seem preoccupied with, they acted quite quickly, and all of a sudden, regarding the 'feature buys' in games, hopefully they could do the same here, and get a message to licensed casinos/the industry to cut ties with affiliates promoting non gamstop casinos. past and present would probably be the message required, there was/is no excuse to deliberately target people with addiction/gamstop issues, which is clearly what they were/are doing.

 

[dunover]

So it seems newcasinoway have removed the non gamstop page, but every casino I tagged are still advertising on there, alongside some of the casinos that were on the non gamstop page.

Where exactly is the incentive to stop affiliates doing this type of thing, when casinos won't cut of the revenue stream? Any of the reps feel free to answer? Please don't insult us by saying anything along the lines of its better to educate people blah blah blah, thats horseshit, as they know EXACTLY what they are dong by creating the page in the first place.

The simple answer would be for the decent licensed casinos to prohibit ANY affiliates from advertising them alongside or in conjunction with unlicensed and unregulated sites, whatever the market. Eschew short term gain for the long term benefit of their reputations. If only...

On the other hand, let them do nothing and see if ultimately the fines and sanctions they get hit with by the regulators in various markets for breaches of advertising and/or RG codes make it all worth while.

I have a feeling thePOGG's report will be quite incendiary to the regulators that receive it.

 

[colinsunderland]

The simple answer would be for the decent licensed casinos to prohibit ANY affiliates from advertising them alongside or in conjunction with unlicensed and unregulated sites, whatever the market. Eschew short term gain for the long term benefit of their reputations. If only...

On the other hand, let them do nothing and see if ultimately the fines and sanctions they get hit with by the regulators in various markets for breaches of advertising and/or RG codes make it all worth while.

I have a feeling thePOGG's report will be quite incendiary to the regulators that receive it.

I agree, however, any decent casino would do that voluntarily. Out of all the reps, only Casumo replied and Jan liked the post, @Team.Videoslots haven't even replied, considering how active they are on here you would think they would. As long as the affiliate is delivering customers, all is ok though.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I agree, however, any decent casino would do that voluntarily. Out of all the reps, only Casumo replied and Jan liked the post, @Team.Videoslots haven't even replied, considering how active they are on here you would think they would. As long as the affiliate is delivering customers, all is ok though.

The simple answer would be for the decent licensed casinos to prohibit ANY affiliates from advertising them alongside or in conjunction with unlicensed and unregulated sites, whatever the market. Eschew short term gain for the long term benefit of their reputations. If only...

On the other hand, let them do nothing and see if ultimately the fines and sanctions they get hit with by the regulators in various markets for breaches of advertising and/or RG codes make it all worth while.

I have a feeling thePOGG's report will be quite incendiary to the regulators that receive it.

Christmas is coming!

Sounds like the comment fits perfectly for this. We can all spell out wishes but.....

To this day, the industry has not implemented anything, NADA, NOTHING that protects or informs the player on a voluntary basis. I've been a player from the very beginning (1998) and have yet to see one voluntary measure/initiative or anything in that direction. All that is available today was implemented either under pressure from authorities/public sentiment or directly because new regulations forced them. Yet, even what we see today is all watered down to the minimum thanks to some of the most intense lobbying you can imagine.

The explanation is clear. Anything that protects players is cutting profitability. Plain and simple. And casinos have yet to be known to be charitable businesses.

 

[mack341]

2 September 2019 /igaming

The GB Gambling Commission believes further improvements to the online self-exclusion system GamStop are needed before it becomes mandatory for all licensees to integrate with the solution.
While the majority of UK licensees have partnered the system, the Commission told iGamingBusiness.com that more work must be done for signing up to GamStop to be a key licence condition.
‘’We welcome the establishment of GamStop and the ongoing steps they have been taking to continually develop and improve the scheme,” the Commission said of the solution. “We are pleased to see that a large number of people are already getting protection through signing up and we hear directly from people about the benefits it has provided.
“However, the scheme has not yet reached the point where we are satisfied to trigger the requirement for all operators to become members," it added. "We will continue to support GamStop’s work to ensure the further developments and improvements are made.’’

Is this still the position today, that it isn't a requirement yet?

NB: the front page of gamstop still says "In due course, all online gambling websites will be required to join by the Gambling Commission. "

I thought the non-gamstop casinos we were discussing were based in places like curacao not the uk?

Is this going to complicate matters if the ukgc haven't yet made it mandatory?

 

[ThePOGG]

The rogue operators in question are located in Curacao and not subject to UKGC regulations. The affiliates that have been highlighted are likewise unlikely to be based in the UK and not beholden to UKGC regs.

However, the UK licensed operators who work with these affiliate are subject to UKGC regs and this is where they UKGC should be acting.

These operators have to comply with the LCCP which states:

"Licensees should follow any relevant industry code on advertising, notably the Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising."

Reviewing the Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising it states:

"8. Although the Industry Code provides a benchmark for the Industry, operators can and often do go beyond its requirements. The gambling industry has a responsibility to ensure that it takes all reasonable steps to minimise the extent of problem gambling and to prevent underage gambling from taking place. Socially responsible advertising is essential if that is to be achieved."

"General Principles

18.Before the Industry Code moves on to address a number of specific issues, the following list contains general principles that gambling operators should take particular care to adhere to when they are developing and placing advertisements:

- care must be taken not to exploit children and other vulnerable persons in relation to gambling activity; and "

I think it can be reasonably argued that retaining a relationship with an affiliate that has engaged in practices contrary to "minimising the extend of problem gambling" and "exploit[ing]... vulnerable persons in relation to gambling activity" supports these activities and as such is actively contrary to these provisions.

Setting aside the Social Responsibility provisions that are part and parcel of accepting a license one of the UKGC's 'Licensing Objectives' is as follows:

preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder, or being used to support crime

The rogue operators in question are breaking UK law. Money that they make is going directly to support crime. The affiliates promoting these operators are facilitating this criminal activity.

It seems reasonable to conclude that these affiliates could be considered 'accessories' to the crime:

"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime. The distinction between an accessory and a

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

is a question of fact and degree "

-

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(and this doesn't necessarily account for the fact that the affiliate is acting on their own outside of the operator's criminal activity, directly facilitating it and that they are profiting from the actions. It may be that accomplice would be a more reasonable definition)

So what we have here are UK operators choosing to partner with businesses that could reasonably be viewed as accessories to activities that breach UK law.

In my opinion, allowing licensees to partner with affiliates that are breaching UK law seems fundamentally contrary to "preventing gambling from being a source of crime" and "being used to support crime". But even if we don't want to accept that UK licensees are directly facilitating crime in this sense there is zero reasonable question that their actions do result in gambling "being associated with crime". These affiliates are facilitating actions that breach UK law and UK operators are clearly 'associated' with them.

It seems to me that if the regulator wants to take action to prevent this activity, there are sound grounds for them to do so.

TP

 

[Team.Videoslots]

Hello @colinsunderland

Thanks for the heads up, we have passed this on to our Affiliate Team and they are taking further action.

Br,
Team Videoslots.

 

[Nicola]

Had a quick look through Twitch this evening, Christ there are so many casino streamers promoting dodgy casinos nowadays.

Even @Chipmonkz has resorted to promoting the crappier Aspire and Netkan brands in the past few days!

 

[CleanMyShoes]

I'm sorry for the likes of Dazza who made occasional videos and they were entertaining ie his bonanza vids esp

But I wont be sorry to see most of the others go. Chip has said above is now resorting to promoting rubbish casinos, he's a smaller streamer who still afford to lose 2k a month?. I wont even bother ranting about Roshtein because its just not worth the hassle. A lot of these streamers need a kick up the backside, and having to go out and find actual work might be a massive shock to them.

 

[EkJR]

2 September 2019 /igaming

The GB Gambling Commission believes further improvements to the online self-exclusion system GamStop are needed before it becomes mandatory for all licensees to integrate with the solution.
While the majority of UK licensees have partnered the system, the Commission told iGamingBusiness.com that more work must be done for signing up to GamStop to be a key licence condition.
‘’We welcome the establishment of GamStop and the ongoing steps they have been taking to continually develop and improve the scheme,” the Commission said of the solution. “We are pleased to see that a large number of people are already getting protection through signing up and we hear directly from people about the benefits it has provided.
“However, the scheme has not yet reached the point where we are satisfied to trigger the requirement for all operators to become members," it added. "We will continue to support GamStop’s work to ensure the further developments and improvements are made.’’

Is this still the position today, that it isn't a requirement yet?

NB: the front page of gamstop still says "In due course, all online gambling websites will be required to join by the Gambling Commission. "

I thought the non-gamstop casinos we were discussing were based in places like curacao not the uk?

Is this going to complicate matters if the ukgc haven't yet made it mandatory?

They wont make it mandatory until it is fool proof. It is still very easy to get round at this stage as has been proven numerous times over. I haven't spoken to the UKGC for a couple of months now, but I understand the date where is going to be mandatory could be the end of next year as Gamstop are still developing improvements and having a robust system in place for checking(there have been anomalies).

The point is it's very obvious what Gamstop is and who it is intended for. For affiliates to deliberately setup to advertise Curacao bullshit to problem gamblers is absolutely unacceptable and as @ThePOGG says, criminal.

 

[dunover]

Had a quick look through Twitch this evening, Christ there are so many casino streamers promoting dodgy casinos nowadays.

Even @Chipmonkz has resorted to promoting the crappier Aspire and Netkan brands in the past few days!

But not bCasino, no?

 

[mack341]

They wont make it mandatory until it is fool proof. It is still very easy to get round at this stage as has been proven numerous times over. I haven't spoken to the UKGC for a couple of months now, but I understand the date where is going to be mandatory could be the end of next year as Gamstop are still developing improvements and having a robust system in place for checking(there have been anomalies).

The point is it's very obvious what Gamstop is and who it is intended for. For affiliates to deliberately setup to advertise Curacao bullshit to problem gamblers is absolutely unacceptable and as @ThePOGG says, criminal.

No I've got the gist of it now after reading the Pogg's reply, I wasn't trying to deter the issue from being addressed, I just wondered if some uk casinos were not on gamstop whether this would complicate things, but if they do exist they are obviously not going out of their way to advertise and promote that fact [that they are not signed up to the gamstop system] unlike these rogue ones.

 

[Nicola]

But not bCasino, no?

Can't say I saw any to be fair.

 

[pinnit2014]

Whooshhh.....head.....over......

 

[colinsunderland]

Can't say I saw any to be fair.

you promoted them, long after they were rogue on here.

 

[Nicola]

you promoted them, long after they were rogue on here.

Oh that. I was a partner in that business (50/50 share) and it wasn't my personal choice to add them back at a later date.

As there was no concrete link between claims here, it was added back.

The business has been sold on, but I can say that bCasino was well liked, no complaints and affiliate payments were always paid by the third working day of the month - just behind Trada.

 

[colinsunderland]

nope, none at all

 

[dunover]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Nope, none at all...

Pause video at 1:33 (seems pretty 'concrete' to me!)

Plus the research done at the time via their bogus UK address and Companies House names, Google them as we did back then when they appeared.

Hope you felt it was all worth it.

FTR this was why the member in question had her website link privileges removed from her posts.

Whether the UK arm of this 1668/JAZ fraud was 'liked by players' or not, the evidence it was funded by money sourced from ripped-off players, unlicensed deposits etc. was pretty irrefutable and always was. The bitter irony is that she was spot-on in the first place, originally posting the image Oceanbets incriminating image above in Colin's post and later removing it. This was what led people to uncover the rest of the negative information in the first place.

Sadly, ultimately I guess money spoke louder than ethics and this great spot in that image was moot.

 

[colinsunderland]

Just had a look at casinomir, and I can see every UKGC licensed casino have now been removed, so well done to those who were listed for taking action. Well apart from (surprise surprise) the MTST/GIG casino, Cashmio @GiG_Alex @Cashmio Affiliate who are still listed and still have a full page review.

https:// casinomir . com/gambling-sites/cashmio-casino/

The affiliate link is working fine, so that says it all.

 

[Nicola]

Hope you felt it was all worth it.

Very much so

 

[colinsunderland]

Very much so

Well, as this thread shows, promote scum and you make plenty of money.
If 'your' site was sold, why does it still show the same ltd company as the owner on there and that company still have the same single director it did when you co owned it? Some sort of tax fraud going on or something?
Tom Defty is the only shareholder listed too, and has been since the company was started. The company only issued one share, and it belongs to him.

Plus you keep mentioning you aren't in the business any more, yet are still getting commissions, as recently as this month.

Anyone might think someone was attempting to distance themselves from something.

 

[EkJR]

 

[Nicola]

Plus you keep mentioning you aren't in the business any more, yet are still getting commissions, as recently as this month.

Anyone might think someone was attempting to distance themselves from something.

Whilst I can't speak for other people you have named, I would like to know more on the commission I earn't last month. Evidence please sir

Thanks to NetEnt, I have 112,983 reasons not to be bothered continuing this conversation this evening.

 

[Supababe]

Whilst I can't speak for other people you have named, I would like to know more on the commission I earn't last month. Evidence please sir

Thanks to NetEnt, I have 112,983 reasons not to be bothered continuing this conversation this evening.

Trying to guess from your posts today....
Is it a divine reason? Or a more modern twist on divine perhaps?

 

[colinsunderland]

Whilst I can't speak for other people you have named, I would like to know more on the commission I earn't last month. Evidence please sir

Thanks to NetEnt, I have 112,983 reasons not to be bothered continuing this conversation this evening.

And I'm sure companies house would like to know that Tom Defty had a partner who owned 50% of the shares, contrary to his filings at companies house.

You are either Tom, or you have breached the companies act, or have lied about owning 50% of the company.

Before I give you the evidence you ask for (which I'm sure you know I can do or I wouldn't have stated what I did), does Tom take part in discussions on here, as I know you stated in the past he didn't? Maybe he could chime in?

Aside from that, congratulations on your win

 

[goatwack]

F***ing hell will people stop winning Jackpots please, it's really triggering

 

[Nicola]

And I'm sure companies house would like to know that Tom Defty had a partner who owned 50% of the shares, contrary to his filings at companies house.

You are either Tom, or you have breached the companies act, or have lied about owning 50% of the company.

Before I give you the evidence you ask for (which I'm sure you know I can do or I wouldn't have stated what I did), does Tom take part in discussions on here, as I know you stated in the past he didn't? Maybe he could chime in?

Aside from that, congratulations on your win

He isn't active on here but on GPWA and AskGamblers AFAIK. My employment/association ended on August 31st 2019. Mishcon de Reya LLP were the company lawyers. It's been covered elsewhere that the brand, affiliate accounts and assets etc were brought for £1.65m by a London-based firm.

As I said a few months back, I'm glad to be out of the affiliate industry. It has turned toxic and is on a downhill slope with constant input from the UKGC.

There are many affiliates who I still know, most successful who are at the Aff conference in Malta as we speak doing business. I have nothing against the good guys, only the scum who prey on problem gamblers.

I think we all want whats best for the player and we need to work together to eradicate these low-life setting up phoney sites with non-licenced casinos.

 

[sufferinsilence]

F***ing hell will people stop winning Jackpots please, it's really triggering

Jackpots are never triggering for me

 

[colinsunderland]

Your employment? But you have stated on here you owned 50% of the company?
You got a link to the coverage about the sale as I can't find it anywhere. Do the london based firm have links to Betfair by any chance?

So is it the new London based firm posting on GPWA as casinodefence now, as that was you wasn't it?

What I don't understand is, if it was sold, why does the website still state its owned by iGaming Analysis Corporation Limited, still has its Marble Arch address. Even the privacy page, taht was updated end of October, states that too. If Tom sold his share then companies house should have updated well before now, so presumably he still owns the single share there, so why would he let his company name be used if he has nothing to do with it.