Anyone Else tried Kaboo Casino yet?

[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.