Affordability

[Davey86]

The use of credit reports to determine affordability?

 

[Davey86]

Another casino has decided to use affordability using my credit score? And restricted my account no deposits! Bear in mind I have a mortgage and no defaults and an excellent score

 

[pinnit2014]

Another casino has decided to use affordability using my credit score? And restricted my account no deposits! Bear in mind I have a mortgage and no defaults and an excellent score

Said no Bonanza player ever.

 

[thr0b]

I disagree with it because affordability and credit scoring are two different things. And credit scores can fluctuate quickly.

Affordable to a “poor” person might not be affordable to a “wealthy” person either. It’s relative to the overall situation.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Angry face at the use of credit reports to assess affordability, not your post

I wouldn't mind if there was a blanket approach across all industries, but affordability is not questioned at the counter for alcohol, cigarettes or getting your hand on the latest must-have mobile phone while you take government benefits.

Not a fan of blanket approaches when they compensate for a tiny minority anyway.

Besides, I think the results of the survey have this one wrapped up....

 

[goatwack]

One could see how there might be good intentions behind ensuring gambling affordability.

Problem lies in that it's not cut & dry, as gamblers come in all shapes and sizes, and it's not the sole preserve of povvos. And yet this is the subset demographic the UKGC, via panicking casinos, are now focussed on.

Of far greater benefit would be to consult players on a one-to-one basis and reach an agreement for both parties as to what they deem reasonable monthly deposits, limits and so forth, as opposed to the wank route of pulling the rug from under unsuspecting players that have sudden deposit limits foisted upon them, or even credit-checking their suitability, so as not get fined to buggery by some regulatory body.

But the crux of the matter is that these bodies are trying to nullify the essence of gambling itself, which by and large, often involves calculated risk to potentially lose as well as win. Most don't gamble within their means by default, because the whole point of gambling is to risk your small stash to potentially get an even bigger stash, and the pursuit of it is causes the thrills and spills.

These have to be possibly the most anti-gambling measures gambling 'associates' could ever have hoped to dream up, and will end with very few able to gamble at all, at next to no casinos. So have fun with that!

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

Another casino has decided to use affordability using my credit score? And restricted my account no deposits! Bear in mind I have a mortgage and no defaults and an excellent score

Hey Davey,

This is a strange outcome and I’m guessing the”credit score” you are referring to isn’t quite as it seems to you personally.

Usually there’s a soft check against publicly available credit agencies to make sure you’re not in financial hardship. It sounds like you’re not, so let’s cross that off.

Another check is related to a customers postcode and the “risk” in that area. You could be affected by that maybe?

Gaming companies try to do as many checks on publicly available data in the background so we don’t have to ask you for docs up to a certain level of spend, as most tell us to get lost if that’s needed. These checks are not foolproof but do protect vulnerable people. I’m sure you agree that’s a positive thing.

I’m sure if you wanted to go through the source of wealth route with them the block would be lifted.

Mark

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

One could see how there might be good intentions behind ensuring gambling affordability.

Problem lies in that it's not cut & dry, as gamblers come in all shapes and sizes, and it's not the sole preserve of povvos. And yet this is the subset demographic the UKGC, via panicking casinos, are now focussed on.

Of far greater benefit would be to consult players on a one-to-one basis and reach an agreement for both parties as to what they deem reasonable monthly deposits, limits and so forth, as opposed to the wank route of pulling the rug from under unsuspecting players that have sudden deposit limits foisted upon them, or even credit-checking their suitability, so as not get fined to buggery by some regulatory body.

But the crux of the matter is that these bodies are trying to nullify the essence of gambling itself, which by and large, often involves calculated risk to potentially lose as well as win. Most don't gamble within their means by default, because the whole point of gambling is to risk your small stash to potentially get an even bigger stash, and the pursuit of it is causes the thrills and spills.

These have to be possibly the most anti-gambling measures gambling 'associates' could ever have hoped to dream up, and will end with very few able to gamble at all, at next to no casinos. So have fun with that!

Cross posted sorry. Pretty much what I said. We would all love to have the 1-2-1 conversation and that’s what we strive for, but in reality we need to check someone who we don’t know anything about isn’t at risk.

 

[goatwack]

Cross posted sorry. Pretty much what I said. We would all love to have the 1-2-1 conversation and that’s what we strive for, but in reality we need to check someone who we don’t know anything about isn’t at risk.

I'm just curious as to who's deemed a risk, when the variables are so great.

The person on Benefits who apparently can't afford to gamble anyway? Or when someone the casino considers to be on a low income has their account locked for fear of fines?

You mention SoW as the answer, forgetting all the while that they're not the answer either, in fact it's one of the worst things to hit the industry, and they're reviled and loathed in equal measure.

Intrusion is not ok, taking away people's autonomy isn't either. Because then, the unwillingness to truly assess players on an individual basis really will end up making the situation immeasurably worse as punters seek their thrills at other, less savoury establishments!

And lest we forget recycled winnings, people's circumstances changing daily/ weekly and so forth. It truly was better before all this, with less animosity towards the player, under the guise of protecting them. People don't gamble to be mollycoddled sir!

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

I'm just curious as to who's deemed a risk, when the variables are so great.

The person on Benefits who apparently can't afford to gamble anyway? Or when someone the casino considers to be on a low income has their account locked for fear of fines?

You mention SoW as the answer, forgetting all the while that they're not the answer either, in fact it's one of the worst things to hit the industry, and they're reviled and loathed in equal measure.

Intrusion is not ok, taking away people's autonomy isn't either. Because then, the unwillingness to truly assess players on an individual basis really will end up making the situation immeasurably worse as punters seek their thrills at other, less savoury establishments!

And lest we forget recycled winnings, people's circumstances changing daily/ weekly and so forth. It truly was better before all this, with less animosity towards the player, under the guise of protecting them. People don't gamble to be mollycoddled sir!

Goaty, There’s no clear answer to your points I’m afraid. We’re all doing what we can to protect consumers.

 

[bamberfishcake]

I'm just curious as to who's deemed a risk, when the variables are so great.

The person on Benefits who apparently can't afford to gamble anyway? Or when someone the casino considers to be on a low income has their account locked for fear of fines?

So this is how I see it:

f you have bucketloads of money to spare, you will be allowed to become an addict at your leisure and be left to spend your heavyweight disposable income as you please until you are in the gutter, or worse before harsh limits are applied for your protection.

If you have hardly a sheckle to your name, expect harsh restrictions on spending your pennies because you need reigning in and tight control before you go all crazy and get yourself in a teeny bit more debt than what you already are.

 

[goatwack]

So this is how I see it:

f you have bucketloads of money to spare, you will be allowed to become an addict at your leisure and be left to spend your heavyweight disposable income as you please until you are in the gutter, or worse before harsh limits are applied for your protection.

If you have hardly a sheckle to your name, expect harsh restrictions on spending your pennies because you need reigning in and tight control before you go all crazy and get yourself in a teeny bit more debt than what you already are.

That too. Penalize those that are on menial incomes, whilst those on good earnings get to play to their heart's content.

If these measures are an offshoot of Responsible Gambling, it doesn't seem very responsible, as one's income doesn't determine their recklessness.

Seems like a concerted effort to keep the coffers full with high-rollers, whilst eliminating the scuzzy riff-raff gamblers that add next to nothing. Because when quizzed by a regulatory authority as to how a well-to-do gambler slipped through the cracks and found to be in breach of safety measures, casinos can simply turn around and say "But they didn't exhibit problem behaviours. We thought they woz minted and sheeeet" ?‍

 

[brianmon]

I had a pop-up window appear when I logged into Ladbrokes last night, telling me that they'd applied a £500 monthly Net Loss Limit on my account But I could increase the limit by answering a few questions.
I didn't bother clicking the button for the questions.
I think a £500 monthly limit is adequate for my needs. and saves worrying about any SOW shit for crossing some arbitrary threshold

Then tonight an email from PokerStarts.
And again I don't think I need to bother them to increase my £5,000 Daily Net Deposit Limit, lol

The introduction of Net Deposit Limits to accounts helps us to protect our players. All your deposits, withdrawals and player to player transfers contribute towards the Net Deposit Limit.

For players 25 and older, a daily £5,000 Net Deposit Limit will come into effect. New players (defined as players in their first 30 days with us after real money approval) will initially have a £1,000 daily and £5,000 monthly Net Deposit Limit, before reverting to the standard limit.

If you would like to review your Net Deposit Limit with us, please contact customer service.



Obviously, neither of them are Malta-based,

 

[Mr_Slot5]

All getting a tad silly now isn’t it ?

 

[shadow123]

Why has online gambling been singled out the way it has, Simple fact is that if a person has funds earned honestly, paid taxes
or even on benefit, it is their choice to dispose of them as they wish,affordability is not something to be judged on by people
who know nothing about the industry or real life probably.
The intrusion is way way overboard and it is high time the motives of the UKGC and the people who control them are investigated.
The stock exchange is no more than glorified gambling but the affordability checks on investors are virtually non existant,
I can and have lost 20k in a day on investments,not a word was said, it is accepted that I know the risks and have the ability
to make my own decisions and accept the consequences if it goes tits up but when it comes to online gaming I am considered
to be some lowlife who has to justify all my acivity including time spent participating in the disgusting pastime.
Everything is done to make players feel guilty about gambling and making them aware that they are being continuously
monitored by computers which churn out reports by the thousand highlighting possible "problems" which must be investigated
and actions taken.George Orwells 1984 was way ahead of its time, it is exactly what happened in the novel.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Why has online gambling been singled out the way it has, Simple fact is that if a person has funds earned honestly, paid taxes
or even on benefit, it is their choice to dispose of them as they wish,affordability is not something to be judged on by people
who know nothing about the industry or real life probably.
The intrusion is way way overboard and it is high time the motives of the UKGC and the people who control them are investigated.
The stock exchange is no more than glorified gambling but the affordability checks on investors are virtually non existant,
I can and have lost 20k in a day on investments,not a word was said, it is accepted that I know the risks and have the ability
to make my own decisions and accept the consequences if it goes tits up but when it comes to online gaming I am considered
to be some lowlife who has to justify all my acivity including time spent participating in the disgusting pastime.
Everything is done to make players feel guilty about gambling and making them aware that they are being continuously
monitored by computers which churn out reports by the thousand highlighting possible "problems" which must be investigated
and actions taken.George Orwells 1984 was way ahead of its time, it is exactly what happened in the novel.

I completely agree.

I've said many times on here that if you actually take a step back and look at the whole thing, it's completely ludicrous. A grown adult should have complete autonomy over what they spend their hard earned funds on, providing it's legal.

Someone wants to spend their last £20 on slots...so what? That £20 is no less valid and conditional than a £20 that has come from a £20,000 bank balance.

The day that people are told what they can and cannot spend THEIR money on is a bleak day indeed.

Furthermore, I can say with almost complete certainty that alcohol causes more societal damage than gambling ever could. I've seen people's lives completely destroyed by it. It's not so easy to come after that though is it, there'd be uproar and unrest on a country wide scale if people were told they couldn't purchase alcohol.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

That too. Penalize those that are on menial incomes, whilst those on good earnings get to play to their heart's content.

If these measures are an offshoot of Responsible Gambling, it doesn't seem very responsible, as one's income doesn't determine their recklessness.

Seems like a concerted effort to keep the coffers full with high-rollers, whilst eliminating the scuzzy riff-raff gamblers that add next to nothing. Because when quizzed by a regulatory authority as to how a well-to-do gambler slipped through the cracks and found to be in breach of safety measures, casinos can simply turn around and say "But they didn't exhibit problem behaviours. We thought they woz minted and sheeeet" ?‍

One can only surmise that this is essentially another assault on the less well off.

The thrill of gambling is exactly the same for a less well off lowroller who hits £200 off a 20p spin and a highroller that hits £20,000 from a £20 spin.

 

[pinnit2014]

Ah, the old: duty to protect vulnerable people - anyone would think a casino is a social care service who actually have initiatives that do just that (and very well)

Make me wonder who's going to be there to protect my pancreas as i eye up a large bowl of cola cubes at 8.30am.

It's hard to know if casino's have been more complicit or complacent in the decimation of the gambling industry - i've seen small businesses, via their trade associations, fight back harder against moves that they feel hurt their business.

If casino's and providers really cared about protecting vulnerable people, or creating such, they'd stop encouraging/hosting 90% RTP slots - but hey, they don't. Whilst not as bad know, their tactics regarding withdrawals and enforcing unfair t's and c's.

That aside, as most places can't even understand 'i should got 10 FS with that deposit, but i never', call me dubious in doubting their ability to assess affordability anyhow.

 

[Deeplay]

Absolutely not! Sure check for ID purposes but a credit score has no real meaning anyway. Credit companies look at wide range of factors when assessing a persons credit worthiness - credit card utilisation / credit applications defaults / payment history etc - a credit score is only a visual not a determination of credit worthiness.

Example a few years back I had no credit utilisation simply because much of my business / income was based over seas - but I did also have a large income into the UK - yet my "credit score" was crap because their was little or no UK facing credit footprint. Then add into that what business is it of a casino to determine if "we can afford" what is already a degenerate pastime. So what if a person only has a disposable income of 50 quid a month or less and decides they wanna blast it all or more in a casino ? who are we to judge ? nanny state on steroids!

It is yet another reason I wont ever play UK again unless there was some kind of gambling revolution. And the UKGC collapsed. When I gamble its always offshore now - no intrusive checks - zilch zero. And if they ask for more than basic ID then I simply move on.

Said it before - and say it again the gaming industry in the UK was at one time the envy of the world and was pretty much self regulated by the legit casinos. They were still problem gamblers then - they are still problem gamblers now - no matter if you have credit checks or not. The only change is if a person determined to gamble cant because of restrictions in the UK then they will find their way offshore where truly they are no safety nets what so ever. So it has just made what was a manageable problem worse.

 

[Deeplay]

Cross posted sorry. Pretty much what I said. We would all love to have the 1-2-1 conversation and that’s what we strive for, but in reality we need to check someone who we don’t know anything about isn’t at risk.

Hi Mark how can you truly know f a person is at risk or not ? sure casinos have some level of social responsibility for individual players who say want to SE or set limits and so forth. A credit check is intrusive - even a soft check. My own son has what you can call a low credit score - and would not even get a pint of milk on credit - but only because he has no real credit history - he has a growing savings account - and is financially very stable. His credit score does not reflect this at all. He could easily afford to gamble (thankfully he dont unlike his wretched father) but based on a credit check even if he wanted to - he could well end up being denied - which is wrong imo.

 

[Davey86]

Social credit scores in the future?

Asda checking your social score to determine if they can sell you alcohol to enjoy yourself!
Waitrose checking to see if your wealthy enough for their products
Taxi company checking your score to see if you should be getting the bus
High end restaurant checking to see if you can afford a steak or off you go to McDonald’s for a burger :axeman2:
Obviously I’m joking about none of the above

 

[goatwack]

End of the day these are businesses vying for custom, somehow of the belief that gamblers will fall over themselves to continue their play at their joints.

Casinos have lost oversight of this fact by thinking they can impose these practices without consequence, when ultimately, it'll just drive customers elsewhere, and not even just crapto casinos taking Tom & Jerry Coin on Sugar Loaf Cay, but also other UK establishments.

Because last I checked, the customer is still always right. So woe betide any casino that credit checks my ability to play, as they'll only end up hurting their business. Fine by me!

Thing with gambling and financial autonomy is that there's no half- gambling or half- autonomy. If that money is rightfully the customers' own, they can spend it how they see fit. And yes that money can be spent on anything they wish. The only red flags that ought to pop up are when blatant money- cleaning is afoot, and casinos have had those protocols in place for decades already, and so the current justifications for AML and affordability are simply farcical.

I'll be on the sidelines laughing as casinos continue to sabotage their own interests by ostracizing their bread & butter player base through comical means. Bring it on ?

 

[justdoit]

I am not asking casino for credit or credit card, I join to spend money and they should treat me as costumer
we should get all together and avoid playing on MGM and UKGC casino for week see what casinos will do next, they will spam are emails with new deals
Stop treating as like Criminals

 

[justdoit]

Why has online gambling been singled out the way it has, Simple fact is that if a person has funds earned honestly, paid taxes
or even on benefit, it is their choice to dispose of them as they wish,affordability is not something to be judged on by people
who know nothing about the industry or real life probably.
The intrusion is way way overboard and it is high time the motives of the UKGC and the people who control them are investigated.
The stock exchange is no more than glorified gambling but the affordability checks on investors are virtually non existant,
I can and have lost 20k in a day on investments,not a word was said, it is accepted that I know the risks and have the ability
to make my own decisions and accept the consequences if it goes tits up but when it comes to online gaming I am considered
to be some lowlife who has to justify all my acivity including time spent participating in the disgusting pastime.
Everything is done to make players feel guilty about gambling and making them aware that they are being continuously
monitored by computers which churn out reports by the thousand highlighting possible "problems" which must be investigated
and actions taken.George Orwells 1984 was way ahead of its time, it is exactly what happened in the novel.

I can make deposit £250.000 a week on crypto com and lose all in 10mins
my kid can lose 1000s on Fifa virtual content packs with very low return no one will care his under 18 and spend 1000s

 

[shadow123]

A Pensioner can pick his pension and blow it all on the lottery and scratch cards no problem,but as its for "good causes"
(things that the gov should be paying for but sucker us into doing it), its ok
Maybe wrong but I have never seen any play responsibly messages on TV National lottery ads.
For years 16 year olds were allowed to play it and it took a hell of a long time to stop the higher value scratchcards.
Talk about double standards.
Sorry , in a bit of a mood as i have just blown £200 on some shite game I wish I had never found, time to get pissed and
beat up the kids .. well my version of it, dog only gets 1 treat instead of 2

 

[mitak11]

I was very surprised when 2 days ago UNIBET sent me a message that after checking my credit report they stopped my deposits. I work on a permanent employment contract with a salary of 3600 pounds per month.In fact, they have suspended my account. I tried to talk to them - zero result. All my loans have been paid off for months, only on one credit card I slightly exceeded the limit, and then I paid it off. I just couldn't believe that I couldn't play. I don't bet more than 200 pounds per month, I didn't even have a deposit limit.But within 2-3 months I have profit from Unibet sister site of 1600 pounds (with a deposit of 50 pounds) and a few days ago with a deposit of 30 pounds I have 450 profit. I think that's what had an effect, the credit history is only pretext. I am not afraid of inspections, because for years I have been working on a permanent employment contract and I have permanent legal income.

 

[OliverCooper]

Of course, there is some logic in this, but not everyone will like it

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I was very surprised when 2 days ago UNIBET sent me a message that after checking my credit report they stopped my deposits. I work on a permanent employment contract with a salary of 3600 pounds per month.In fact, they have suspended my account. I tried to talk to them - zero result. All my loans have been paid off for months, only on one credit card I slightly exceeded the limit, and then I paid it off. I just couldn't believe that I couldn't play. I don't bet more than 200 pounds per month, I didn't even have a deposit limit.But within 2-3 months I have profit from Unibet sister site of 1600 pounds (with a deposit of 50 pounds) and a few days ago with a deposit of 30 pounds I have 450 profit. I think that's what had an effect, the credit history is only pretext. I am not afraid of inspections, because for years I have been working on a permanent employment contract and I have permanent legal income.

I said on this forum last year that I thought it was vital that UK players took the initiative and set deposit/loss limits. The room was easy enough to read with the constant bombardment of reminders about deposit limits etc.

Casinos aren’t going to let unlimited accounts go unchallenged now as they implement limits for you or worse, close your account.

 

[gonzo fonso]

doesnt make sense to me,i know someone in my town that can go into ladbrokes or mark jarvis and play 300 400 pounds on the FOBT no one asks about SOW/SOF credit rating/report etc

 

[shadow123]

Problem with setting deposit and loss limits is that they more than likely to prompt
investigations straight away,if the casino isnt happy with what you set , the account is liable to be frozen and SOW stuff
demanded.I gave up with Grosvenor and Mecca as this happened every time I made a change even though they had more
than enough evidence that the amounts I set were easily affordable.
Think its time the casinos grew some balls and made a stand against the UKGC and did a lot more lobbying in the right places
instead of just rolling over and accepting all the crap they are being given.Nothing to stop the bigger casinos getting some
legal advice and taking the UKGC to court on matters including data protection,the intrusion of personal rights and misusing
the money laundering regulations to force new regulations through.which have nothing to do with AML.
It wont end well if nothing is done,more and more casinos are giving up the UK market as a lost cause and the end result has
to be players migrating to casinos they shouldnt go to and will get no protection or help when things go wrong.
Apart from anything else , the total amount of personal data held by casinos is a real security risk,one day there will
be a major security breach and thousands of players will have their personal details sold on to god knows where.

 

[goatwack]

Casinos aren't exactly the Fort Knox of the internet as it is, and people's details are already mostly compromised after handing them on a plate.

There seems to be very little disparity between the 'good and trusted' casinos and the 'not so good', as one's email Junk folders take the same daily beating. So ultimately, a user's details get bandied around more than a lady of easy virtue......so when that's the case with basic KYC, handing casinos ever more personal financial details becomes somewhat of an even greater risk to the player.

So I have little doubt that merely signing up to most casinos is a security risk from the outset, and that player details are already sold as a side earner as it is. So I doubt casinos will be lining up to lobby against any of the current regulations, AML or otherwise, and certainly not with their competitors in a stunning act of solidarity!

Losing customers they're supposedly ok with, only thing they're worried about is looming fines from a regulatory body. As for the end user? F*** 'em

 

[pinnit2014]

Not half...

Caveat in that a lot of our personal info is out in the wild as it as - linkedin, Yahoo, facebook - so, whilst i'm not sure i fully subscribe to the 'my data is personal' (given that folk hand out spending habits via loyalty cards and even cookies), casino's in the main can be pretty inept at safeguarding it - i mean, some accredited casino's on here ask you to send passport pics (hi L and L) via email - end to end, unencrypted, what can go wrong?

Which kind of makes the whole: what will Curacao do with your data a bit more moot...i don't know, ask MGA?

 

[slotmaster]

Credit score is the biggest scam ever, not accurate, and does not tell the whole story, This is the dumbest s!@# I have heard so far in regards to the casinos.

I am going through what was posted above in relation to my being stalked/harassed, the casino is doing nothing about that person cause that person is a problem gambler and does the bigger bets, this person does not work but me who have an income and just a regular player and just tries to withdraw when he can and is the victim is being limited on his play!

F'n INSANITY!!

 

[aceking123]

Other problem occurs when money is being recycled, meaning winnings, this should be taken in account you win 1k at one then use it in another all from a 100 deposit, so in fact if you did lose that 1k, in affect you've only lost 100, going by current status this seem unheard-of, people shall just end up on crypto sites, to which some are really good.

 

[goatwack]

Wouldn't surprise me if casinos viewed a player's recycled winnings as an act of money laundering, because as we know, many of these types of rule-enforces haven't so much as gambled in their entire life.

In fact they probably loathe gambling and gamblers and see them as addicts needing 're-educating' in the ways of responsible money management

 

[Mr_Slot5]

One thing is for sure, the backlash from players seems to be steadily growing as more and more get sucked into this absurdity.

As said above, I’m not sure why there isn’t a joint casino effort to lobby against some of this crap.

 

[OliverCooper]

One thing is for sure, the backlash from players seems to be steadily growing as more and more get sucked into this absurdity.

As said above, I’m not sure why there isn’t a joint casino effort to lobby against some of this crap.

Apparently, even collective negativity in this situation plays into their hands

 

[bamberfishcake]

The idea of 'affordability' is nothing more than an arse-covering exercise.

It's a tick box for a casino, nothing more.

If there was true care, the approach would be different and look at playing styles and losses rather than affordability for deposits.

 

[pinnit2014]

And they certainly wouldn't be making/hosting 88% slots whereby you have to chuck your mortgage, car finance payment and loan repayments to get a 10x bonus.

Do you think you can afford to play our slots?

Not at that basement setting, no - can anyone?

Next question?

 

[bamberfishcake]

And they certainly wouldn't be making/hosting 88% slots whereby you have to chuck your mortgage, car finance payment and loan repayments to get a 10x bonus.

Do you think you can afford to play our slots?

Not at that basement setting, no - can anyone?

Next question?

Or let Play'n GO and Pragmatic Play have demo slots with 96% RTP on the same website that has 88% cash play versions.

Also, when considering affordability, should a player be allowed to reach their limit in a single session? Might be shooting myself in the foot here because I believe in the freedom to spend as you please, but is that not a sign of problem gambling if a player usually does one or two deposits before calling it quits, but on a single occasion, places out of character deposits over and over again?

I am sure there a more indicators of problem gambling, and real customer care would look at those instead of allowing players to spend silly amounts when losing in a single session.

 

[pinnit2014]

Or let Play'n GO and Pragmatic Play have demo slots with 96% RTP on the same website that has 88% cash play versions.

Also, when considering affordability, should a player be allowed to reach their limit in a single session? Might be shooting myself in the foot here because I believe in the freedom to spend as you please, but is that not a sign of problem gambling if a player usually does one or two deposits before calling it quits, but on a single occasion, places out of character deposits over and over again?

I am sure there a more indicators of problem gambling, and real customer care would look at those instead of allowing players to spend silly amounts when losing in a single session.

Again, i'm sure it is an indicator in some cases doing that but it's quite nuanced: eg. i've cut my playing time by about 50% (at a guess) but still keeping to budget in being down - the decision to play shorter, but higher stake sessions, was a conscious decision as i simply didn't want to do the whole grind anymore: might well be the case i'll get a 'courtesy email' asking why (simply copy and past the above) but equally, yeah there might be folk who have staggered deposits over the month but now, cos of issues, and going two feet in.

Casino's should be using the history of their players more - i've been with casino's for years and years and, whilst my play has slightly changed, NOT THAT much and they have, in many cases, a wealth of data to allow them to do something other than broad brush, blanket approaches.

New players will always be riskier - straight in, 5k, 5k - AML and other bells ringing but the bulk of normal players will be quite static.

 

[maxd]

Why has online gambling been singled out the way it has, ...

 

[mellody]

Only just found this thread. Last Wednesday I deposited £30 at Unibet as I have occasionally done over a few years. Didn't play. I then received an email stating my deposits had been blocked due to an affordability check with TransUnion. I googled Transunion and decided it was spam. Just a quick look at companies house tells you this is not a reputable company. Five new names since 2004, lots of dodgy holding companies etc. and the local branch is a none trading company. Realising it was actually real on Friday I went to live chat on and they were very patronising, all I wanted to know was why? Instead they said my account had been closed which is has not. I asked for my deposit back, already refunded they said, it wasn't. No explanation whatsoever.
I can log in today, still getting emails etc. It would seem my only recourse is to approach Transunion, no chance.
Honestly I do not bet what I cannot afford, have no credit rating as I do not do credit, I also have no debt. My bank balances are healthy and I have done the SOW at other casinos no issues. For a casino as large as Unibet to use such a company seems backwards, their main reason for bad credit ratings and blacklisting seems to be a postal address issue, so you are screwed if you live in a block of flats etc. I would have done a SOW if they had asked but they didn't. Anyway I guess this is gonna be the new way forward. No input from the customer/player necessary and no explanation or recourse.

 

[Davey86]

@Unibet Rep
Seems to have happened to a few players in the last week?

 

[pinnit2014]

They limited me to a mere 500 loss a month

I mean i could lose that in Bonanza in a hour, so, naturally, i said do one and lost the 500 elsewhere - viva le Unibet! - what a great business model you have opted for. -kudos

 

[pinnit2014]

The biggest question though is who are the 4 weirdo's who voted yes

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Only just found this thread. Last Wednesday I deposited £30 at Unibet as I have occasionally done over a few years. Didn't play. I then received an email stating my deposits had been blocked due to an affordability check with TransUnion. I googled Transunion and decided it was spam. Just a quick look at companies house tells you this is not a reputable company. Five new names since 2004, lots of dodgy holding companies etc. and the local branch is a none trading company. Realising it was actually real on Friday I went to live chat on and they were very patronising, all I wanted to know was why? Instead they said my account had been closed which is has not. I asked for my deposit back, already refunded they said, it wasn't. No explanation whatsoever.
I can log in today, still getting emails etc. It would seem my only recourse is to approach Transunion, no chance.
Honestly I do not bet what I cannot afford, have no credit rating as I do not do credit, I also have no debt. My bank balances are healthy and I have done the SOW at other casinos no issues. For a casino as large as Unibet to use such a company seems backwards, their main reason for bad credit ratings and blacklisting seems to be a postal address issue, so you are screwed if you live in a block of flats etc. I would have done a SOW if they had asked but they didn't. Anyway I guess this is gonna be the new way forward. No input from the customer/player necessary and no explanation or recourse.

Perhaps the criteria they are using is how much credit you have? A lot of credit = more exposure and therefore more risk, perhaps? Even if the balances are paid off, the potential to be loaded with debt would be there.

I don’t know for sure, just musing.

The thing is these casinos aren’t lenders and I highly doubt they have a team of financial advisors behind the scenes…so they really shouldn’t be making these decisions. How much credit you have should be neither here nor there to a casino. The credit you do have would already have been granted based on affordability checks by the lenders.

 

[mellody]

Perhaps the criteria they are using is how much credit you have? A lot of credit = more exposure and therefore more risk, perhaps? Even if the balances are paid off, the potential to be loaded with debt would be there.

I don’t know for sure, just musing.

I don't do credit, at least not since I was a teenager. I don't believe in having what you cannot afford. Thus I also have no debt but no credit rating. Even my student loan is clear..... The only other reason I can think is that I opt out of the open electoral register, the sensible option in the UK. Although any UK casino should know you can still be on the electoral roll just not the one businesses pay for.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I don't do credit, at least not since I was a teenager. I don't believe in having what you cannot afford. Thus I also have no debt but no credit rating. Even my student loan is clear..... The only other reason I can think is that I opt out of the open electoral register, the sensible option in the UK. Although any UK casino should know you can still be on the electoral roll just not the one businesses pay for.

Well if they’re blocking you based on not being on the open register, it’s ridiculous and they’re turning away business for no good reason.

It’s hard to see how some of these casinos are going to survive going forward. No point trying to avoid a UKGC fine if they’re losing turn over equal to, or greater than, the fine amount.

 

[mellody]

Totally agree but they don't give a reason, so who knows, Transunion are a sham outfit for sure, but Unibet don't deserve my custom after this anyway. To reiterate even though they say deposits blocked and account closed... it isn't I just logged in now and have all the usual bonus offers etc. Just another casino that needs to get their shit together....