Anyone Else tried Kaboo Casino yet?

[dunover]

I have just had to think There is no wager on echo's only x1 or something,

Did you take a deposit bonus?

Yes, £50 deposit with 100%.

P.S. There is NO data I can see in the Minions forum for Kaboo, so I guess I'll be the first to advise on their w/d speed. It doesn't appear they process at weekends for a start, as still pending 10 hours later.

P.S. Mr. Mincher, you'll be as green as the Turd when you see the insane spell I had on it..... ;0)

 

[spintee]

Yes, £50 deposit with 100%.

P.S. There is NO data I can see in the Minions forum for Kaboo, so I guess I'll be the first to advise on their w/d speed. It doesn't appear they process at weekends for a start, as still pending 10 hours later.

P.S. Mr. Mincher, you'll be as green as the Turd when you see the insane spell I had on it..... ;0)

Here you go https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/69369?t=69369

But was not weekend

 

[jjezebel37]

Well it's crazy then, every site with a bonus should have a means of checking, a progress bar etc. If I find out (but I don't believe it so) that I was still under a few quid of WR and by withdrawing have somehow voided a bonus or done other damage to my w/d.....well......

There is a way.

When you hit withdrawal, there is a question mark beside the amount. It will say x amount still needs to be wagered and when you hit the question mark, it let's you know how much.

It could be better as I nearly cancelled out a withdrawal without seeing it.

If it let you go ahead and withdraw, then I'd say you are safe.

Ps, had a withdrawal of £650 in 10 hours without verification.

 

[dunover]

It gets worse. I just tried to log in to check if any progress on my w/d and 'account is inactive'..... Can't log in.

No reply from the rep yet and still no reply to e-mail I had to send 15 hours ago when I clicked the 'live' chat link and there was no live chat but an e-mail form.

I have had no communication or explanation from the site.

I have a bad feeling this is not going to end well.

Will update you when or if I hear anything....

 

[spoton]

They paid me pretty quick after submitting documents when I won there. Werent as lucky as you Dunover, but made a decent 200€ withdrawal out of 20€ . I think(and hope) they are a site aiming to be a good and legit one, but they might have rushed the launch just a tiny bit combined with some inexperienced leadership and/or employees.

 

[cncas2123]

It gets worse. I just tried to log in to check if any progress on my w/d and 'account is inactive'..... Can't log in.

No reply from the rep yet and still no reply to e-mail I had to send 15 hours ago when I clicked the 'live' chat link and there was no live chat but an e-mail form.

I have had no communication or explanation from the site.

I have a bad feeling this is not going to end well.

Will update you when or if I hear anything....

Could this have something to do with self exclusion from a sister sire - I know you mentioned the exclusion in a previous post.

 

[dunover]

Could this have something to do with self exclusion from a sister sire - I know you mentioned the exclusion in a previous post.

I doubt it as firstly it's not in their terms and they aren't EM, secondly as you said I mentioned that a month ago and Erik saw it so the account would have been shut by now anyway and lastly I have made 2 deposits 5 weeks apart so if there was any issue like that they would have acted before now. Unless of course they are thoroughly dishonest and let you play and lose and suddenly "notice an issue" when it comes to a win and a withdrawal. But Erik and accredited sites wouldn't behave like that as it breaches UKGC ethos and is just plain wrong.

I have been onto live chat and have been told it's a 'security check' and they will contact me henceforth. Never had that before, a closed account for a security check when I've been playing there for a month or so. I complained it is unfair to treat players like that without informing them and host agreed. I will update when I know more.

 

[brianmon]

I'm already SE'd from Thrills and SLenny. Which begs a few questions, doesn't it......

you mean this one?

 

[brianmon]

I doubt it as firstly it's not in their terms and they aren't EM, secondly as you said I mentioned that a month ago and Erik saw it so the account would have been shut by now anyway and lastly I have made 2 deposits 5 weeks apart so if there was any issue like that they would have acted before now. Unless of course they are thoroughly dishonest and let you play and lose and suddenly "notice an issue" when it comes to a win and a withdrawal. But Erik and accredited sites wouldn't behave like that as it breaches UKGC ethos and is just plain wrong.

I have been onto live chat and have been told it's a 'security check' and they will contact me henceforth. Never had that before, a closed account for a security check when I've been playing there for a month or so. I complained it is unfair to treat players like that without informing them and host agreed. I will update when I know more.

Erm... They are EM -

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

 

[dunover]

Erm... They are EM -

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

Well according to Erik when I posted the EM list of licensees from the UKGC site earlier in this thread and Superlenny was in the list he said they weren't associated with that licence but with just Betit/SL/Kaboo?? TBH I'm sick to death of all this EM nonsense, obfuscation and selectively applying non-listed conditionsto shaft players. I will add no further comment to this thread until I hear back from Erik.

Yes, that was my post and the account was never touched - until I entered a W/D today.

 

[brianmon]

If you've SE'd at thrills though. their terms say

Once you have self-excluded, on the brand you are currently a member of, your accounts on the other sites operated by us will be closed for the self-excluded period selected..

The identical term is also in the Kaboo T&C

And you'll have opened the account at Kaboo after the SE at Thrills, so it may not be picked up until a withdrawal and security check.

Erik's a good guy though, so I'm sure he'll sort something out

 

[dave1888]

My review(played here)

Kaboo a fairly new casino on the block come from the innovative minds of the people behind Thrills and Superlenny you can be sure they have fast withdrawals,exquisite customer care,a wide selection of slots and casino games and awesome promos.
Kaboo offer a nice welcome offer of 100% on first deposit and depending where you join you can get 10 free rounds too(I did).

Kaboo have all the online gaming heavyweights including Netent-Microgaming-Next Gen and Thunderkick.
The reason they are different from other casinos is they have many player incentives promotional offers, missions and their own currency!
This currency is called "echoes"(you earn echoes from your gameplay). You can use your echoes to buy free rounds.

Ten Echoes to buy spins on Starburst,15 echoes for Aliens and so on.Now here's the incredible part the value of the coins increases drastically on the higher costing free spins, from memory this is a whopping 1.50 a spin on Piggy Riches(game may have changed now). With this size coin value the player could win massive!

I would definitely recommend this casino to a friend as they are a great all round casino from a reputable group.

Dave1888

 

[Erik]

Hi

I will take a look at the case directly dunover and get back to you in PM

Also the feedback regarding the WR is duly noted, and I will see if we can get it implemented

Regards
Erik

 

[dunover]

If you've SE'd at thrills though. their terms say

Once you have self-excluded, on the brand you are currently a member of, your accounts on the other sites operated by us will be closed for the self-excluded period selected..

The identical term is also in the Kaboo T&C

And you'll have opened the account at Kaboo after the SE at Thrills, so it may not be picked up until a withdrawal and security check.

Erik's a good guy though, so I'm sure he'll sort something out

Two problems with that:

1. How is the new player supposed to know which sites when they are not in the terms, or no link is supplied to the License?

2. Not picking it up until a withdrawal won't wash with me. I have repeatedly tested sites and am rejected by 99% as soon as I submit my details to open an account. I couldn't get as far as a deposit. If this were the case then I could theoretically sign up, submit BS details and not be challenged until I made a withdrawal. This would mean the casino's system is wholly inadequate and not fit for purposes of security to which they are obliged under their license to provide, OR rather more worrying it's an unwritten and wholly orchestrated policy to increase revenues by taking deposits on a no-lose basis because they can keep losing ones and not pay winners. That would be almost criminal.

As you say Erik's group are not famed for dishonesty and unethical behaviour so maybe (as it did with Betsafe) there's been a glitch somewhere.

P.S Erik has PM'd me to say he's taking a look, which is a good job as my account is still 'inactive' and I've heard nothing by phone or e-mail, not a squeak.
If it wasn't for CM, and I was a 'normal' player I'd be kicking walls in frustration and anger.

 

[brianmon]

Two problems with that:

1. How is the new player supposed to know which sites when they are not in the terms, or no link is supplied to the License?

2. Not picking it up until a withdrawal won't wash with me. I have repeatedly tested sites and am rejected by 99% as soon as I submit my details to open an account. I couldn't get as far as a deposit. If this were the case then I could theoretically sign up, submit BS details and not be challenged until I made a withdrawal. This would mean the casino's system is wholly inadequate and not fit for purposes of security to which they are obliged under their license to provide, OR rather more worrying it's an unwritten and wholly orchestrated policy to increase revenues by taking deposits on a no-lose basis because they can keep losing ones and not pay winners. That would be almost criminal.

As you say Erik's group are not famed for dishonesty and unethical behaviour so maybe (as it did with Betsafe) there's been a glitch somewhere.

P.S Erik has PM'd me to say he's taking a look, which is a good job as my account is still 'inactive' and I've heard nothing by phone or e-mail, not a squeak.
If it wasn't for CM, and I was a 'normal' player I'd be kicking walls in frustration and anger.

The links to the UKGC on the homepages of Kaboo and Thrills both go straight to the Betit license. Which shows -

kaboo.com
SuperLenny.com
Thrills.com
betitgroup.com

But the link on Superlenny goes to the EM license (the 'general' Jetbull one), Something Erik might want to look into

 

[Deeplay]

The links to the UKGC on the homepages of Kaboo and Thrills both go straight to the Betit license. Which shows -

kaboo.com
SuperLenny.com
Thrills.com
betitgroup.com

But the link on Superlenny goes to the EM license (the 'general' Jetbull one), Something Erik might want to look into

Thats why I never joined with Kaboo as have a closed account with SL. So knew even if i did sign up and deposit it would have been picked up.

But granted they should be able to pick up if a user is SE at sign up so long as the same details are used.
But this is angoing issue with the industry right now . EM being a prime example. If in doubt over a casino is part of a group or not ask support
and get the answers copied/ emailed in case you need to refer later. Why they could not pick up Dunover had already SEd at a sister site would need to be looked into.

 

[dunover]

Thats why I never joined with Kaboo as have a closed account with SL. So knew even if i did sign up and deposit it would have been picked up.
But granted they should be able to pick up if a user is SE at sign up so long as the same details are used.
But this is angoing issue with the industry right now . EM being a prime example. If in doubt over a casino is part of a group or not ask support
and get the answers copied/ emailed in case you need to refer later. Why they could not pick up Dunover had already SEd at a sister site would need to be looked into.

You needn't have worried on that score!!!

Bear in mind I first deposited and played at Kaboo 5 WEEKS AGO! Sorry, but that's plenty of time considering I always use the exact same e-mail and details etc. The bit above (licensees) comes from the UKGC site and indeed SL is listed wrong as is stated above. The whole issue needs looking into across other casinos too. Most will spot you on sign up, and their due diligence works. I still find it hard to believe that peoples accounts aren't checked until W/D!! If the system is working the details should be flagged immediately as they indeed are with 99% of sites. This means money laundering must be easy - no checks, deposit and then load account and then 'oh dear! you're excluded, let us send your deposits back and shut the account.

Sorry, I don't buy this nonsense at all. I am finding it hard to believe sites aren't doing this deliberately. (not necessarily in this case as I haven't heard anything else back yet.)

 

[goremarine]

Been playing for the past 24hrs and have made two deposits.
I was mid game and got booted out....

Now displaying this message:

LOCATION RESTRICTION
Forbidden: User is not authenticated: Cannot perform read: primary replica for shard ["", +inf) not available in: r.db("ramson").table("users").get("540868a0e74b229fe5594248") ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anyone else having the same problem?

 

[dave1888]

Been playing for the past 24hrs and have made two deposits.
I was mid game and got booted out....

Now displaying this message:

LOCATION RESTRICTION
Forbidden: User is not authenticated: Cannot perform read: primary replica for shard ["", +inf) not available in: r.db("ramson").table("users").get("540868a0e74b229fe5594248") ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anyone else having the same problem?

Restart your router and clear your DNS cache if this doesn't work then contact support to inform them. My IP was coming up saying I was in California and Ontario before no idea what was going on but it corrected itself on a restart. To clear DNS cache click Start, then type in cmd, click the search result and type in ipconfig /flushdns and then press return.

 

[Owen Kinsella]

I am a new poster and another victim of Everymatrix. I opened an account with Favourit.com recently. Lost a few deposits initially but then had better luck and started to win money. My balance was sitting at £195 with a winning bet still to settle that would have taken my balance to £440 (£200 profit). Before this bet was settled however, I couldn't log in and had my account suspended. An email subsequently followed informing me of a previous self exclusion with Noxwin.com and their right to forfeit winnings.

After being thrown from pillar to post, I was eventually emailed saying the full balance would be returned for the full amount of £195. They decided to suspend and forfeit my winning bet before it was settled! The £195 doesn't cover my deposits of £245. They are just making it up as they go along.

Although this has been posted several times and sounds like the same old, it was clear in my case that Everymatrix were actively monitoring my profit/loss margin before deciding to take action. They are purposely allowing gamblers to deposit money without any intention of paying out. Absolutely scandalous! It's simply theft.

Anyway, I noticed I had another account several months ago with Beanbagsports which comes lol after my alleged self exclusion with Noxwin. I have a £300 loss on that page. Would the Everymatrix rep on here help me to claim this back please? After all, I am supposed to be banned from ALL your websites

 

[goremarine]

Restart your router and clear your DNS cache if this doesn't work then contact support to inform them. My IP was coming up saying I was in California and Ontario before no idea what was going on but it corrected itself on a restart. To clear DNS cache click Start, then type in cmd, click the search result and type in ipconfig /flushdns and then press return.

Thanks, that worked and I'm back in.

I've told the live chat that my Echoes balance remains on '10' yet I have done loads of their missions.
Any one else got that issue?

 

[dunover]

I am a new poster and another victim of Everymatrix. I opened an account with Favourit.com recently. Lost a few deposits initially but then had better luck and started to win money. My balance was sitting at £195 with a winning bet still to settle that would have taken my balance to £440 (£200 profit). Before this bet was settled however, I couldn't log in and had my account suspended. An email subsequently followed informing me of a previous self exclusion with Noxwin.com and their right to forfeit winnings.

After being thrown from pillar to post, I was eventually emailed saying the full balance would be returned for the full amount of £195. They decided to suspend and forfeit my winning bet before it was settled! The £195 doesn't cover my deposits of £245. They are just making it up as they go along.

Although this has been posted several times and sounds like the same old, it was clear in my case that Everymatrix were actively monitoring my profit/loss margin before deciding to take action. They are purposely allowing gamblers to deposit money without any intention of paying out. Absolutely scandalous! It's simply theft.

Anyway, I noticed I had another account several months ago with Beanbagsports which comes lol after my alleged self exclusion with Noxwin. I have a £300 loss on that page. Would the Everymatrix rep on here help me to claim this back please? After all, I am supposed to be banned from ALL your websites

Whilst I agree with your sentiments here, this is a duplicate post (you started another thread, to which I replied, with this exact same post!)
Be aware the mods/admin view this cross-posting dimly in most cases.......

 

[Erik]

Thanks, that worked and I'm back in.

I've told the live chat that my Echoes balance remains on '10' yet I have done loads of their missions.
Any one else got that issue?

Hi

PM me your username and I will sort it out for you

Regards
Erik

 

[spintee]

I am a new poster and another victim of Everymatrix. I opened an account with Favourit.com recently. Lost a few deposits initially but then had better luck and started to win money. My balance was sitting at £195 with a winning bet still to settle that would have taken my balance to £440 (£200 profit). Before this bet was settled however, I couldn't log in and had my account suspended. An email subsequently followed informing me of a previous self exclusion with Noxwin.com and their right to forfeit winnings.

After being thrown from pillar to post, I was eventually emailed saying the full balance would be returned for the full amount of £195. They decided to suspend and forfeit my winning bet before it was settled! The £195 doesn't cover my deposits of £245. They are just making it up as they go along.

Although this has been posted several times and sounds like the same old, it was clear in my case that Everymatrix were actively monitoring my profit/loss margin before deciding to take action. They are purposely allowing gamblers to deposit money without any intention of paying out. Absolutely scandalous! It's simply theft.

Anyway, I noticed I had another account several months ago with Beanbagsports which comes lol after my alleged self exclusion with Noxwin. I have a £300 loss on that page. Would the Everymatrix rep on here help me to claim this back please? After all, I am supposed to be banned from ALL your websites

The bit highlghted sounds about right,Your post sums it up about EM but was clear is that you was down but had a bet ongoing which would of bought you in profit and was soon flagged,
Its bloody wrong and please make sure you check all accounts under EV as you are entitled to every penny back you spent with them, Its been going on to long now and are taking players for a big ride, U.K license are as useless as a fish tank with a pane of glass missing, All they are after is a fast buck, Untill somebody has some cash and gets stung let it be £5 or 5 million, they are going to do shit all,

What needs to be done is less of the useless T&C's and the real terms clear, Max withdraw times 24hr Only reason its longer on sites is that they want to check every bet to try and stuff you, But we are in a tech world now and any programmer could sort this out, Also a real gvner body to sort disputes out ASAP we all know that the government do not care and just wants the cash so they should pay a company to sort problems out,

 

[Deeplay]

The bit highlghted sounds about right,Your post sums it up about EM but was clear is that you was down but had a bet ongoing which would of bought you in profit and was soon flagged,
Its bloody wrong and please make sure you check all accounts under EV as you are entitled to every penny back you spent with them, Its been going on to long now and are taking players for a big ride, U.K license are as useless as a fish tank with a pane of glass missing, All they are after is a fast buck, Untill somebody has some cash and gets stung let it be £5 or 5 million, they are going to do shit all,

What needs to be done is less of the useless T&C's and the real terms clear, Max withdraw times 24hr Only reason its longer on sites is that they want to check every bet to try and stuff you, But we are in a tech world now and any programmer could sort this out, Also a real gvner body to sort disputes out ASAP we all know that the government do not care and just wants the cash so they should pay a company to sort problems out,

I agree seems like the UKGC is turning out to be worth shit! And in fact is working in favor of casinos. Soon as I see EM on any casino I leave. Every Matrix operations are a joke and should be avoided until they get the house in order. I maybe soon moving back to another Country
(Denmark) and I hope there Gambling body fairs better than the rubbish we have now in the uk!

 

[miksaxxx]

cant log in. .

LOCATION RESTRICTION
Forbidden: User is not authenticated: Cannot perform read: primary replica for shard ["", +inf) not available in: r.db("ramson").table("users").get("540868a0e74b229fe5594248


maybe finland is banned

 

[Erik]

LOCATION RESTRICTION
Forbidden: User is not authenticated: Cannot perform read: primary replica for shard ["", +inf) not available in: r.db("ramson").table("users").get("540868a0e74b229fe5594248


maybe finland is banned

Hey

Was a tech issue and site was up an running a little later. All should be fine by now though.

Sorry for the inconvenience

Regards
Erik

 

[maxd]

IF YOU ARE SE'D FROM ANY OF THE LIST BELOW BEWARE OF PLAYING AT ANY OTHER ONE(S) THEY CAN AND WILL CONFISCATE WINNINGS AND NOT REFUND DEPOSITS!!

As it happens that may not be true, or at least it shouldn't be. It seems to boil down to a particular section of the new UKGC rules -- the UKGC rules are called the "License Conditions and Codes of Practice", or LCCP for short -- regarding self-exclusion (SE) and how it should be handled by the casino operators.

Let's assume the following:

• Casino X and Casino Y are "sister" casinos. That usually means they are owned by the same parent and/or operate under the same license.
• Player does SE at Casino X.
• At some later date it is discovered that player has an account at Casino Y.

At the time of this writing my understanding is that the UKGC rules say that the Casino Y should return "the player's funds" and close the account. There does _not_ appear to be a specific statement that says _only_ deposits are to be returned, and winnings therefore confiscated. Any casino that says the winnings are forfeit is probably interpreting the rules to suit themselves.

One caveat here is that if the casino has evidence that the player _specifically_ opened the account at Casino Y to circumvent the SE at Casino X then (in all probability) the balance is forfeit. That is subject to a closer reading of the UKGC rules.

As it happens there are a good number of cases before us, and other sites like us, that seem to pivot on exactly this issue of self-exclusion and "sister" casinos. It's a fairly hot topic just now and a good number of players are being caught in the pinch.

One last thing: one interpretation of the UKGC rules applicable here is that Casino Y should never have allowed the player to bet, in other words the bets should never have taken place and are "invalid", and by that logic the winnings are invalid and the casino doesn't have to pay. Suffice it to say that's a hell of a lot of "if" and casino people that take this route are either not telling the full story or they're being awfully creative in their interpretation of the rules. I'll be pressing this point with casino people where applicable.

 

[dunover]

Yes, very good Max it's certainly a bone of contention. I don't believe a player ever deliberately signs-up at a sister site he/she is SE'd from knowing they won't get paid so wasting their time and then having to plead their case after. I've been caught once, even Simmo has IIRC.

I believe the onus is on the casinos to spot this. Most do automatically, especially people like Gala/Coral Grosvenor/Mecca etc. Just one similar detail will get the 'contact CS' message if you try and dupe.

It appears though smaller operations either cannot spot this automatically (I can't see why when it's so easy for a program to flag a same name/address/mobile no./e-mail etc.) or choose not to, knowing that they can have a 'no risk' customer who doesn't have to be paid if they win, and will walk if they lose.

I say for the umpteenth time:

IF the casino doesn't have a coherent and functional checking system that cross references all sites under that license then they MUST openly display the linked sites on that license in their T&C's!!! IT'S SO BLOODY SIMPLE!! Warn the player off beforehand, prevent the situation occurring.

Until this happens, there is always going to be unnecessary PABs/complaints and bad-feeling and even worse the constant suspicion that sites are being less than diligent in order to line their pockets by signing no-risk players.

I am very glad Max that you have stated that you will be giving this issue some attention. It's so blooming easy to avoid.

 

[maxd]

IF the casino doesn't have a coherent and functional checking system that cross references all sites under that license then they MUST openly display the linked sites on that license in their T&C's!!! IT'S SO BLOODY SIMPLE!! Warn the player off beforehand, prevent the situation occurring.

Actually I don't think it's as easy for the operator to avoid as it may first seem. In my experience there is a perceived financial advantage to casinos to _not_ name their "sister" casinos so they will avoid doing so.

I call the first part of this "The Hotel Room Fallacy" because it's based on the notion that a hotel room customer should be encouraged to feel as if "they are the first" even though they obviously aren't.

In the case of casinos there seems to be an understanding among marketing people that once a player has landed on your casino property they should be encouraged to believe that it is the only casino property worth their attention. That is largely accomplished by pretending there are no other casinos. If you can manage that then obviously there is some advantage to running more than one property simultaneously, each pretending to be "the one and only" and thus withholding the player segment that went there in the first place. More casinos, more player action: happy days!

So there you have it, at least one reason why operators like to firewall their properties from each other.

Another reason is the "Stink Bomb Hypothesis": most operators assume that sooner or later something will go wrong at one of their casinos and a great fat controversy will erupt that will "stink bomb" that brand. What they want to do is firewall each casino so that when the "stink bomb" hits at one casino it won't spill over to the others because nobody knows who the others are. Voila! The operation as a whole continues unphased while the damaged brand recovers as quickly as it can.

 

[dunover]

Actually I don't think it's as easy for the operator to avoid as it may first seem. In my experience there is a perceived financial advantage to casinos to _not_ name their "sister" casinos so they will avoid doing so.

I call the first part of this "The Hotel Room Fallacy" because it's based on the notion that a hotel room customer should be encouraged to feel as if "they are the first" even though they obviously aren't.

In the case of casinos there seems to be an understanding among marketing people that once a player has landed on your casino property they should be encouraged to believe that it is the only casino property worth their attention. That is largely accomplished by pretending there are no other casinos. If you can manage that then obviously there is some advantage to running more than one property simultaneously, each pretending to be "the one and only" and thus withholding the player segment that went there in the first place.

So there you have it, at least one reason why operators like to firewall their properties from each other.

Another reason is the "Stink Bomb Hypothesis": most operators assume that sooner or later something will go wrong at one of their casinos and a great fat controversy will erupt that will "stink bomb" that brand. What they want to do is firewall each casino so that when the "stink bomb" hits at one casino it won't spill over to the others because nobody knows who the others are.

Yes, I suppose similar to the advantage of farting badly in a room full of people. You can always blame someone else, whereas if there's only you. or you and one other it's harder to escape the fallout...

Seriously though, that's another couple of points to consider. Although with the plethora of casinos advertised everywhere now the 'pretence' is bordering on the illogical and nearly delusional.

Nowadays I'd say the opposite is true. When Bet-at opened a sister site and likewise Guts we had a whole raft of enthusiastic new signees because of the great reputation of the primary site.

 

[maxd]

Please note that I never said casinos should follow the paths I described, just that some do for reasons they find sufficiently compelling. Witness 32Red for instance, when they buy a casino -- often a damaged brand -- they are totally up front about it from day one. That in itself repairs a goodly amount of the damage previously done and the old brand now under new management is off to the races.

 

[spintee]

Please note that I never said casinos should follow the paths I described, just that some do for reasons they find sufficiently compelling. Witness 32Red for instance, when they buy a casino -- often a damaged brand -- they are totally up front about it from day one. That in itself repairs a goodly amount of the damage previously done and the old brand now under new management is off to the races.

From what I heard/seen they was not upfront about it, Not until the last minute when changed, Along with a few more casino's, But thats here or there,

I took note of a few of your posts so I take it you have looked in to this UKGC

Max
One last thing: one interpretation of the UKGC rules applicable here is that Casino Y should never have allowed the player to bet, in other words the bets should never have taken place and are "invalid", and by that logic the winnings are invalid and the casino doesn't have to pay. Suffice it to say that's a hell of a lot of "if"

There are alot of ifs, I think there working around the rules, As you pointed out they should pay what is in balance,but what if you only had a£10 and deposit 10K and all of a sudden they said sorry you signed up to sisters site have your £10 back whats left, forget about the 10k you put in, Or better still win 10k and only have the the £10 you put in,

Dunover mention this as I think he was dunover by the rules and not pay back, so what are the rules as you pointed out? pay balance whats left including winnings which would or should be void, Due to SE, or deposits? Which could be alot across sites,

I not really do not no what to say but I can say I bet the casino's have not done bad out of it, Payback deposit if win big, take al deposits if lose untill win than give back what you put in minus the wins and don't mention other sties you wasted aload of cash on


sorry guys not just my typing that is bad but another new key board, I try translate English to English tomorrow

 

[dunover]

From what I heard/seen they was not upfront about it, Not until the last minute when changed, Along with a few more casino's, But thats here or there,

I took note of a few of your posts so I take it you have looked in to this UKGC

Max
One last thing: one interpretation of the UKGC rules applicable here is that Casino Y should never have allowed the player to bet, in other words the bets should never have taken place and are "invalid", and by that logic the winnings are invalid and the casino doesn't have to pay. Suffice it to say that's a hell of a lot of "if"

There are alot of ifs, I think there working around the rules, As you pointed out they should pay what is in balance,but what if you only had a£10 and deposit 10K and all of a sudden they said sorry you signed up to sisters site have your £10 back whats left, forget about the 10k you put in, Or better still win 10k and only have the the £10 you put in,

Dunover mention this as I think he was dunover by the rules and not pay back, so what are the rules as you pointed out? pay balance whats left including winnings which would or should be void, Due to SE, or deposits? Which could be alot across sites,

I not really do not no what to say but I can say I bet the casino's have not done bad out of it, Payback deposit if win big, take al deposits if lose untill win than give back what you put in minus the wins and don't mention other sties you wasted aload of cash on


sorry guys not just my typing that is bad but another new key board, I try translate English to English tomorrow

Just a point of order spintee - if you are referring to my Kaboo issue then I have received my deposits back. I was expecting this thread to die away but as it's bumped I just thought it appropriate to mention that.

 

[spintee]

Just a point of order spintee - if you are referring to my Kaboo issue then I have received my deposits back. I was expecting this thread to die away but as it's bumped I just thought it appropriate to mention that.

It might of been but I seen max has been be updating and trying to make the rules clearer, Not that that make any diffrencse ifpeople see its to late,

I pointed out your swipe, But did you get deposits back or wins? You should of known that casino was connect together?

I beef is if pepole know? do they exepct thre wins back or just deposits? This will make alot of diffrence in the RTP thats when casiono should get together and ban them all

 

[maxd]

I'll let dunover respond re the end result of the Kaboo issue but I will say this: the questions you raise re deposits or balance in settling an SE case are not sufficiently answered at the moment. It appears that the casinos are interpreting the rules for themselves and that's causing a number of complaint issues to come down the pipe, not only here but elsewhere (ThePogg, etc). This is very much an unresolved question so I'm afraid there are no definitive answers to be had at the moment.

And yes, I have read _some_of_ the UKGC/LCCP material, mostly stuff relevant to issues high on my recent To-Do lists (the ADR system, self-exclusion, etc). In almost all the things I've said about the UKGC recently raised here at CM I have consulted with at least two other industry professionals, guys particularly close to the UKGC issues because of their positions within the business.

 

[spader123]

I'll let dunover respond re the end result of the Kaboo issue but I will say this: the questions you raise re deposits or balance in settling an SE case are not sufficiently answered at the moment. It appears that the casinos are interpreting the rules for themselves and that's causing a number of complaint issues to come down the pipe, not only here but elsewhere (ThePogg, etc). This is very much an unresolved question so I'm afraid there are no definitive answers to be had at the moment.

And yes, I have read _some_of_ the UKGC/LCCP material, mostly stuff relevant to issues high on my recent To-Do lists (the ADR system, self-exclusion, etc). In almost all the things I've said about the UKGC recently raised here at CM I have consulted with at least two other industry professionals, guys particularly close to the UKGC issues because of their positions within the business.

Max are the SE cases and UKCG rules only applicable to UK players? Are all EU players affected?

 

[dunover]

Max are the SE cases and UKCG rules only applicable to UK players? Are all EU players affected?

Yes, UKGC rules apply only to casinos in their UK operations. Basically it means the casino has to meet certain obligations toward UK players in order to be granted a license to accept UK customers, for example ring-fencing of player funds. Then again we've seen what a paper tiger that rule is....

The laws/rules in your own nation apply to you in a similar way. In reality whichever country you reside in, similar player protection and standards will eventually have to be met whether your rules are laid down via a national Gaming Commission like here or simply by statute if you don't have a GC in your respective country.

I agree it would make sense to have an EU-wide consensus on gaming, but countries like France for instance have little scope for outside online gambling operators, Italy is very specific too.

Having said that, if UK rules are all acceptable in other countries the operator can easily have a singular policy in all countries similar to the UK one.

 

[Tirilej]

Max are the SE cases and UKCG rules only applicable to UK players? Are all EU players affected?

I don't think I've heard about a single casino with a uk license that are using separate rules for the rest of us.
They would have to rewrite all their rules and change also the translations. They don't.

If they have the rules translated to another language the English still apply if there is a problem.

Don't forget that if they have their gambling license in for example Malta, then their rules also have to be followed.
I'm sure there will be restrictions for Swedish players too some day. Until then we still have to follow all other rules.

 

[spader123]

Yes, UKGC rules apply only to casinos in their UK operations. Basically it means the casino has to meet certain obligations toward UK players in order to be granted a license to accept UK customers, for example ring-fencing of player funds. Then again we've seen what a paper tiger that rule is....

The laws/rules in your own nation apply to you in a similar way. In reality whichever country you reside in, similar player protection and standards will eventually have to be met whether your rules are laid down via a national Gaming Commission like here or simply by statute if you don't have a GC in your respective country.

I agree it would make sense to have an EU-wide consensus on gaming, but countries like France for instance have little scope for outside online gambling operators, Italy is very specific too.

Having said that, if UK rules are all acceptable in other countries the operator can easily have a singular policy in all countries similar to the UK one.

Does this mean the SE everymatrix policy of confiscating winnings only affects UK players? Most complains are from people loosing pounds but it seems like some players ha's lost Euros to?

 

[spader123]

I don't think I've heard about a single casino with a uk license that are using separate rules for the rest of us.
They would have to rewrite all their rules and change also the translations. They don't.

If they have the rules translated to another language the English still apply if there is a problem.

That I can understand. The problem is that the terms are so dim/vague it's often hard to interpret them. I've actually only seen uni bets UK site telling straight out that you will be excluded from all sister sites on the same licens to. But maybe it's me that don't read the terms often enough or they may be updated now

All right so the rules are the same for players from all country's?

 

[Tirilej]

That I can understand. The problem is that the terms are so dim/vague it's often hard to interpret them. I've actually only seen uni bets UK site telling straight out that you will be excluded from all sister sites on the same licens to. But maybe it's me that don't read the terms often enough or they may be updated now

All right so the rules are the same for players from all country's?

I didn't say that, but I believe most casinos are following UKGC's rules and whatever rules are set up with where they are licensed.
Every Matrix believes that every player are trying to trick them so they never pay the winnings, just the deposits back.

 

[spintee]

What sites do say if any discrepancy in the translation than the English rules will over ride, But EV are going to be in for a shock if & when the U.K rules finally get there back side in gear,

 

[maxd]

Max are the SE cases and UKCG rules only applicable to UK players? Are all EU players affected?

As I believe I've said elsewhere recently there is a bit of a disconnect here between theory and practice.

In theory the UKGC rules should apply to all EU players at a UKGC licensed casino. Some EU rules apply here which I don't quite get.

In practice I'm told that the UKGC is only expecting their rules to be applied to UK players.

As ever this is (a) an evolving process so things are being figured out more or less as we speak, and (b) I'm no expert, I just talk to the best informed people I know in the biz and then pass that along.

 

[dunover]

Luckily the UKGC is quite a stringent LA so if Tirilej is right (and it makes sense) then UK sites will keep the same rules for foreign players for both simplicity and fairness unless there are specific peculiarities in any particular country's rules to be met.

As for the EM nonsense, as Max has already stated there is wriggle room in the UKGC rules which are woolly in this area, which means of course less ethical licensees will use this wriggle room to take advantage of no-risk depositors (I think it's pretty damn undeniable by now that EM casinos are doing this as a policy to make money) and interpret the rules in their own favour.

This is happening to both UK and Euro players, have no doubt about it by looking around the forum for case after case of it.

Ultimately it's a combination of vague wording by the UKGC and unethical behaviour by certain licensees.

We can only hope that persons of influence or reputation like the admin here have some contacts so the UKGC can have this loophole looked at and hopefully closed pronto.

Or hey! Maybe a decent group/licensee can take the bull by the horns and actually prevent SE sign-ups at sister sites they own by making an effort to identify them (very easy!) before they get as far as depositing and secondly make the sites sharing the license easily visible in both their bonus terms (if only one allowed in the group) and general terms regarding SE. Or might pigs fly first?

 

[quber]

According to the UKGC you can ask to only be SE from the site in question and be allowed to play at others in the group, again this is something that most players won't know so a simple question from EM, or any group, when someone SE's would solve this.

A simple email asking if you would like to be blocked from all casinos in the group or just that one, with a list of casinos, would solve this. If no reply is received from the player then all casinos are blocked.

There are a few ways that casinos could handle this correctly but none of them seem to want to which is what leads us to believe that they are doing it for the money.

 

[maxd]

According to the UKGC you can ask to only be SE from the site in question and be allowed to play at others in the group ....

Do you have a source reference for that? I ask because I'm pretty sure I've read quite the opposite in the LCCP addendum(s), namely that SE at one casino behoves the group to propagate the exclusion across the entire group. The LCCP makes a point of saying that SE is a facility for players to manage gambling addiction and related problems and that it's not to be used for recreational purposes. I recall no mention of the player being able to request anything nor whom they'd request that of.

So yes, please provide a specific reference. IMO such would change the whole spin of SE at UKGC casinos, especially relevant now because of the way casinos are opting to interpret the SE rules largely to the player's detriment.

 

[dunover]

Do you have a source reference for that? I ask because I'm pretty sure I've read quite the opposite in the LCCP addendum(s), namely that SE at one casino behoves the group to propagate the exclusion across the entire group. I recall no mention of the player being able to request anything nor whom they'd request that of.

This is the crux of the matter. I thought so too. So if the group in question fails to administer the SE effectively and therefore it's easy after a SE to sign-up and deposit at their other site(s)then surely this must fall foul of the UKGC intent here? Common-sense would decree that the licensee should have measures in place to spot this and take responsibility although it's apparent now that the smaller groups do not. The bigger groups like the bookies will flag you immediately.

As it stands the situation is ripe for some licensees to exploit SE'd players.

 

[quber]

Do you have a source reference for that? I ask because I'm pretty sure I've read quite the opposite in the LCCP addendum(s), namely that SE at one casino behoves the group to propagate the exclusion across the entire group. The LCCP makes a point of saying that SE is a facility for players to manage gambling addiction and related problems and that it's not to be used for recreational purposes. I recall no mention of the player being able to request anything nor whom they'd request that of.

So yes, please provide a specific reference. IMO such would change the whole spin of SE at UKGC casinos, especially relevant now because of the way casinos are opting to interpret the SE rules largely to the player's detriment.

Old / Expired Link page 59

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


Page 50 states:-

2
Before an individual self-excludes, licensees should provide or make available sufficient
information about what the consequences of self-exclusion are.

 

[maxd]

Old / Expired Link page 59

Where licensees allow customers to hold more than one account ....

That'll do it. Good work! :clap:

I'll go back to the stuff I read and find the sections that seem to work at cross purposes to this.