Another JETBULLl/ EVERYMATRIX "Self Exclusion" Funds retention scam victim

Daz_b

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Location
Newcastle
Hello Everybody,

This is my first post to Casinomeister. I've recently had a problem with Everymatrix and I've found it helpful to read about other victims of their "Self Exclusion Scam".

I had previously self-excluded from "Favourit", and like many others, later joined "Jetbull" in good faith, with no idea that the two sites were related in terms of sharing the Everymatrix platform. I used my normal personal details and email address to register.

I made a deposit to Jetbull and was "fortunate" enough to build up a balance of around £700. Only when I tried to withdraw some of this, did I find that my account was blocked soon after and the withdrawal cancelled.

This happened on Monday. I received an email from Everymatrix explaining why they had blocked my account (because I had self excluded from Favourit) but no mention of the £700 balance, no return of funds, and they have since ignored emails. (It's now midday on Friday).

This is especially miserable for me, because I had spent money elsewhere on Monday, believing I had up to £700 to bank, and this has left me with financial difficulties.

I can't believe that this policy from Everymatrix, and their rotten customer service, is ethical and worthy of a UK Gambling Licence. (I'm aware they've only had this licence since June).

I'm almost resigned to the fact I won't get the money which I won completely fairly, but I won't be taking this sitting down. I'm prepared for the long haul in terms of getting some kind of justice or retribution for this situation, starting with raising awareness of their dirty practices. (See *snip*). I can see from other members that being polite and reasonable with these people doesn't work.

Everymatrix and JetBull are well aware of my position with this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they fail to return the deposit, they are in breach of their UK licence. In addition, the UKGC is not at all impressed with the current industry practice of allowing "problem gamblers" to deposit and lose, and only be found out during a withdrawal. The UKGC expect "problem gamblers" to be detected before they are even able to place a bet in line with the real world idea of being excluded from a gambling premises, rather than being ejected only when asking for more change or an additional advance from a card, or in the case of a bookies, only when redeeming a winning slip.
 
I've got an idea which every casino in the world would hate as well as a lot of players.

What if we all needed to register with the UKGC for a free license before we were allowed to gamble
and we had to supply our unique id that the UKGC supplied us before we could register with any casino.

I know this would never happen but would be so easy for all concerned to know when you were allowed to play somewhere or not.
Casinos and players would need to abide by certain rules and if casino accepts a self excluded player then they at at fault etc.

Sounds extreme i know but would potentially solve so many issues.

Never happened to me but getting real sick of hearing a new complaint like this every week!
 
Thank you Vinylweatherman and Snotter999 for your responses.

I hope that the UK Gambling Commission does look into what's going on at Everymatrix. Disreputable operators shouldn't be licenced.

I can see some sense in having a "global" sort of licence to allow individuals to gamble, although I think an issue at the moment, which I see has been mentioned elsewhere, is that many people self-exclude from individual sites for reasons specific to that site rather than making a decision to stop betting everywhere forever. A licence to cover all online gambling would mean that if you exclude from one operator, you're making a commitment not to use others.

I have self excluded from sites before on the basis that over time, I have noticed that sports odds are comparitively poor, or I have picked up that a site takes liberties with the delay between in-play bets being submitted and accepted, or simply because a site is "unlucky" for me. I've always seen this as a decision that I didn't want to use that individual site again, so "best make sure I don't" and self-exclude.
 
Thank you Vinylweatherman and Snotter999 for your responses.

I hope that the UK Gambling Commission does look into what's going on at Everymatrix. Disreputable operators shouldn't be licenced.

I can see some sense in having a "global" sort of licence to allow individuals to gamble, although I think an issue at the moment, which I see has been mentioned elsewhere, is that many people self-exclude from individual sites for reasons specific to that site rather than making a decision to stop betting everywhere forever. A licence to cover all online gambling would mean that if you exclude from one operator, you're making a commitment not to use others.

I have self excluded from sites before on the basis that over time, I have noticed that sports odds are comparitively poor, or I have picked up that a site takes liberties with the delay between in-play bets being submitted and accepted, or simply because a site is "unlucky" for me. I've always seen this as a decision that I didn't want to use that individual site again, so "best make sure I don't" and self-exclude.

You do have the option to just close your account instead. Of course it can be reopened but to be a gambler you need to have some self diciplin.
Like you wrote in your first post you had already spent a part of your winning. Lesson learned I hope, to not do that again, because you can never know what will happen.
In this case you will probably not see anything of what you won, but if you're lucky you get your deposit back.

Stop playing or stop self exclude from casinos. A law in uk will come where if you self exclude at one you can't play at any other who are licensed there.
 
It is really a personnal opinion but there is something I dont understand...
Why would you ever self exclude yourself from a casino if you later join another one...
I understand self-control is not always easy for everyone... but if you ever self exclude yourself from a casino...
maybe you should avoid every other places aswell.

It is very dishonnest to let a player deposit and play... and in case of a win... blame the autoexclusion bull****
If it was not on purpose... maybe everymatrix would have fixed this obvious problem already.

Excluding yourself seems to be a good way to encounter problems for later if you decide to gamble online again...

Makes me think of my self-excluded friend from a local casino... that has to wear a disguise and a fake beard to go play blackjack before getting escorted outside if he wins... and let alone at the table if he loses...
 
You have my sympathy getting caught out like this, but could this not have been prevented if you read the terms and conditions at both properties before signing up.?

I'm no expert but it's stated quite clearly in the terms of both casinos that they are part of the Everymatrix group and excluding from one excludes you from all, unless you tell them that you only want to be excluded from the one.

It's easy to blame the casinos, but not knowing and understanding the the terms is no defense. It's the same in law, it's no defense to say you didn't know something was against the law.

Just sayin. :)
 
I've been self excluded from Guts for a few months, but I am currently playing at CasinoCruise, But in light of these recent threads popping up, I will no longer be playing there, and I shall e-mail them to inform them, I see other casino's have managed to get a handle on this and don't allow you to sign up if you are excluded from another Everymatrix casino.

I don't see how they are able to block withdrawals, But seem incapable of blocking sign-up's (same e-mail, same address, name, d.o.b.)
 
I've been self excluded from Guts for a few months, but I am currently playing at CasinoCruise, But in light of these recent threads popping up, I will no longer be playing there, and I shall e-mail them to inform them, I see other casino's have managed to get a handle on this and don't allow you to sign up if you are excluded from another Everymatrix casino.

I don't see how they are able to block withdrawals, But seem incapable of blocking sign-up's (same e-mail, same address, name, d.o.b.)

Guts and Casino Cruise is not related.

Casino Cruise are using Every Matrix license but Guts have their owns since a few months back.
Don't worry about them, just if there is some other using EM's license.
 
You have my sympathy getting caught out like this, but could this not have been prevented if you read the terms and conditions at both properties before signing up.?

I'm no expert but it's stated quite clearly in the terms of both casinos that they are part of the Everymatrix group and excluding from one excludes you from all, unless you tell them that you only want to be excluded from the one.

It's easy to blame the casinos, but not knowing and understanding the the terms is no defense. It's the same in law, it's no defense to say you didn't know something was against the law.

Just sayin. :)

Not strictly true. not all everymatix sites share the same license, and those clauses you're referring to are a fairly recent addition. If someone excluded themselves from one casino, a matter of months ago, those clauses weren't in the T&C.
if the self-exclusion was more than a year ago. there wasn't even a problem then with signing up to any other everymatrix casino
 
Not strictly true. not all everymatix sites share the same license, and those clauses you're referring to are a fairly recent addition. If someone excluded themselves from one casino, a matter of months ago, those clauses weren't in the T&C.
if the self-exclusion was more than a year ago. there wasn't even a problem then with signing up to any other everymatrix casino

Ah ok. See I said I was no expert :)
 
Hello Everybody,

This is my first post to Casinomeister. I've recently had a problem with Everymatrix and I've found it helpful to read about other victims of their "Self Exclusion Scam".

I had previously self-excluded from "Favourit", and like many others, later joined "Jetbull" in good faith, with no idea that the two sites were related in terms of sharing the Everymatrix platform. I used my normal personal details and email address to register..

Self exclusion is used by people with gambling problems. It's not to be used by people recreationally.

You should read this statement from Max - it puts things in better perspective:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...£1700-winnings-after-making-withdrawal.68377/
 
Self exclusion is used by people with gambling problems. It's not to be used by people recreationally.

You should read this statement from Max - it puts things in better perspective:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...£1700-winnings-after-making-withdrawal.68377/

If that was a fact then why in so many rules do they start with ''If you feel you need to take a break...''

People won't stop SE since they don't know they have a gambling problem, until casinos start to tell them clearly what it mean.
 
JetbullCasino, Thank you for the "act of good faith" from JetBull/Everymatrix in returning my deposit but keeping hold of the £700 I won.

The company you work for has no class. It accepted upwards of 12 bets from me, and failed to honour them when I tried to take my winnings. Hang your head in shame. You're a bunch of sewer rats. People who take bets and don't honour them deserve zero credibility.

Not only that, but from Monday evening to Friday evening, the Everymatrix "customer service" failed to respond to a very reasonable question which was "what happens to my money". Again, not the mark of a reputable company, but of dishonest vermin.
 
Why is it a "matter of good faith" to return the players' deposit(s)? This of course should always be the case, ethically but also legally speaking. I understand from the OP's response that he made several deposits. Why are these not being returned and why did CSR fail to respond to the OP's messages?
 
Jetbull.com / SE / T&C

Based on the point 29.3 from T&C for UK users accepted during registrations we reserve the right to block the deposit of the users with similar SE situations, but, as mentioned above, we never did this for our customers.

Those points have been added in the T&C in order to protect ourselves against bad faith users which tried to take advantage of this situation.

Coming back to the SE situations, Jetbull.com advices all users with similar situations to contact eCOGRA and report his situation by filling the ADR form (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
) in order to be 100% sure that each particular case is fairly treated.
 
Why is it a "matter of good faith" to return the players' deposit(s)? This of course should always be the case, ethically but also legally speaking. I understand from the OP's response that he made several deposits. Why are these not being returned and why did CSR fail to respond to the OP's messages?

Unfortunately there have been multiple bad faith users in the industry which tried to take advantage of this situation by following below mentioned example :

1. Check for minimum two websites sharing the same license
2. Register on the first website and self exclude
3. Register on the second website and deposit an amount, usually a high amount
4. Wager that amount
5. If won, withdraw the money, if lost complain that there is a SE situation and ask for the money back

This is the reason behind adding those additional points in our T&C
 
I figured that, but this should not be possible since withdrawal of one's winnings would never be possible since they SE'd, right? So they would only be getting their deposits back and what is the point of that? Ideally, of course, the player should be prevented from signing up, or if already a player, from depositing.
 
Our service provider have been informed about this situation and they added an item in their back log in order to have this check performed automatically.
Once this will be implemented, players with this type of situation will be informed about their situation, automatically, before doing the first deposit.
 
Our service provider have been informed about this situation and they added an item in their back log in order to have this check performed automatically.
Once this will be implemented, players with this type of situation will be informed about their situation, automatically, before doing the first deposit.

I guess they have been informed yes, since they have been in here reading all threads too since these problems with their casinos started ;)

I really really hope you're right about this and that it soon will come.
A few casinos using Every Matrix do still have a good reputation, but EM has not. Maybe that will change too.
 
As mentioned on a different thread with the same topic ( see thread here - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/self-exclude-winnings-every-matrix-jetbull.69647/ ) , as a matter of good faith to it's customers, Jetbull.com, all the time returned the users with similar SE problems their initial deposit.

Have all SE players that have deposited but not made a withdrawal also had their deposits returned as they had no possibility to win? This is the rogue part of the whole fiasco, if a player loses you keep the deposits, if a player wins you keep the winnings. Best business plan ever.

According to UKGC, Page 49 paragraph 5 and 6 of this Doc
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
explain their responsibilities..

" 5 Licensees must close any customer accounts of an individual who has entered a selfexclusion
agreement and return any funds held in the customer account. It is not sufficient
merely to prevent an individual from withdrawing funds from their customer account whilst still
accepting wagers from them. Where the giving of credit is permitted, the licensee may retain
details of the amount owed to them by the individual, although the account must not be
active.
6 Licensees must put into effect procedures designed to ensure that an individual who
has self-excluded cannot gain access to gambling. These procedures must include:
a a register of those excluded with appropriate records (name, address, other details,
and any membership or account details that may be held by the operator);
b a record of the card numbers to be excluded;
c staff training to ensure that staff are able to administer effectively the systems; and
d the removal of access from those persons"

So it is not "good faith" that you return the funds you have a responsibility to do so.


Also (page59):

"
2 Where licensees allow customers to hold more than one account with them, the licensee
must have and put into effect procedures which enable them to relate each of a customer’s
such accounts to each of the others and ensure that:
a if a customer opts to self-exclude they are effectively excluded from all gambling with
the licensee unless they make it clear that their request relates only to some forms of
gambling or gambling using only some of the accounts they hold with the licensee;
b all of a customer’s accounts are monitored and decisions that trigger customer
interaction are based on the observed behaviour and transactions across all the
accounts;"
 
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Thanks JetbullCasino for at least having the courtesy to respond, even though you are "towing the party line".

I am taking things forward with my complaint against Everymatrix via several avenues, so I live in hope that I will reach a point where I feel personally that justice has been done and/or a fair outcome reached.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top