Anyone Else tried Kaboo Casino yet?

[quber]

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.

I believe:-

If you open another account after you have SE then that account should be closed as soon as possible and any deposits returned whether you are a winner or loser.

If a player provides conflicting info to allow him to open an account, middle name instead of first name, different email etc. then i believe he should lose deposits if found as this is a player trying to play the system to his benefit.

If you already have another account at a sister site then you should be asked if you would like that to be closed or remain open.

 

[dunover]

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.

Thanks. It's clear that many sites are failing on both my bolded points in your post. If they actually HAVE got 'sufficient procedures to relate accounts' it makes a very interesting point. Assuming they have the proscribed enabling procedures then foul!! because they clearly aren't using them deliberately in order to take deposits from SE'd players. If they haven't then foul!! anyway because they should have.

I'd like to see EM et al wriggle out of that one!

Secondly as for 'making clear the consequences' that's a bit vague because it could refer to next year when SE goes across ALL sites if actioned after a certain date but could also refer to situations like non-payment of winnings should you be SE'd from one sister site and deposit at another under that license. At the moment the casinos are (to their financial advantage) assuming that SEing from one means you want to SE from the rest which is not necessarily the case, but they will throw THAT interpretation at you when you w/d.

And I think it is clear that number 2 in Qubers post would reasonably expect the sister sites to be listed in order to prevent some of the 'consequences'.

 

[maxd]

I believe:-
....

Just out of curiosity is that your interpretation of the UKGC rules or your own opinions on how things ought to work?

 

[quber]

Just out of curiosity is that your interpretation of the UKGC rules or your own opinions on how things ought to work?

That is how i would interpret the UKGC.

Page 49 states-
Licensees must have and put into effect procedures for self-exclusion and take all reasonable
steps to refuse service or to otherwise prevent an individual who has entered a self-exclusion
agreement from participating in gambling.


If someone opens an account with the same details as the SE account then they should pick that up and close it, if someone purposefully uses different details then they can't be reasonably expected to pick up on that so shouldn't have to re-imburse.

An already existing account should have been dealt with at the time of the original SE as to whether the player wanted it to stay open.


Page 49 also states-
Licensees must close any customer accounts of an individual who has entered a self-exclusion 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.

The returning of funds here is only for the account that is being closed, as i see it, but it isn't very clear, there isn't really anything to say what should happen to accounts that are subsequently opened and used before they are spotted but as the general rule seems to be void any winnings and return deposits then i feel all deposits should be returned. To do otherwise is biased towards the casino.

In my opinion winnings should never be paid as that encourages the player to gamble with the knowledge that he can claim a SE to get the deposit back if he loses


EDIT:
This link has some talk about what to do with funds on additional accounts but is only proposals

Old / Expired Link

Starting on page 54 - 7.38

I don't personally see this as a good solution as we all know how many of these casinos will manage to have an 'Admin Fee' that is the same as the amount being donated.

 

[maxd]

Page 49 also states-
Licensees must close any customer accounts of an individual who has entered a self-exclusion agreement and return any funds held in the
customer account.

... In my opinion winnings should never be paid as that encourages the player to gamble with the knowledge that he can claim a SE to get the deposit back if he loses

AFAICT this is the only point you've raised where I think we disagree. The LCCP says "return any funds held in the customer account", period. Nothing is said about making a distinction between deposits and winnings. To me "any funds" means "the balance" and there is no reason to believe they meant otherwise. As such I think a fair case could be made that casinos should pay out the lot, whatever is in the account.

As you say this might encourage players to try to wriggle under the SE wire in order to play and win. "Tough noogies" I'd say, if the casino doesn't want to be caught in that position then they should tighten up their registration process to catch players SE'd elsewhere in their group. I can't imagine that this requires rocket science to put in place. In fact I strongly suspect the infrastructure to do this is already in place; the casino's willingness to admit that and use it to enforce SE is another question. As you know if the casino can make a case that the player _deliberately_ circumvented the SE measures in place then the fault is seen to be the player's not the casino's and winnings would be forfeit.

 

[quber]

AFAICT this is the only point you've raised where I think we disagree. The LCCP says "return any funds held in the customer account", period. Nothing is said about making a distinction between deposits and winnings. To me "any funds" means "the balance" and there is no reason to believe they meant otherwise. As such I think a fair case could be made that casinos should pay out the lot, whatever is in the account.

I read this as the the original account that the player is SE from and I agree all funds in that account should be returned to the player.

They don't really have any rules about what to do if a player manages to open another account, that i can see. Did you see the edit on my previous post

I feel that paying winnings benefits the casino in the long run to the detriment of the player, if a player is able to collect any winnings then he has the incentive to try and open accounts which isn't helping him at all, in that situation the casino are in no way required to return deposits and we all know there will be more lost deposits than winnings. The only loser is the player and we are talking about players that already have problems.

If a player cannot win but only get deposits back then the incentive to gamble is greatly diminished and this benefits the player, i believe that all deposits should be returned whether the player wins or loses.

Of course the main issue here is players SE at one casino and having winnings forfeited at others and also losing deposits that didn't result in a withdrawal resulting in a win-win for the casino, this is the rogue element as a lot of players are not aware of sister sites or SE being applied across groups. All that I wrote above is for protecting the players with problems, this rogue element is about the casinos making a bit of money by not having consistent rules or procedures.

 

[maxd]

EDIT:
This link has some talk about what to do with funds on additional accounts but is only proposals

Old / Expired Link....

As I read it Section 7, page 47-8 of that document makes it pretty clear where the UKGC thinks the SE issue should be moving: an industry-wide, mandatory, multi-operator self-exclusion system. This would put real teeth into their vision of SE, namely "an important harm minimisation tool for those that have recognised that they have a problem with their gambling." Pretty much what a good percentage of players have been asking for for years.

Also, btw, they've gone so far as to separate off recreational self-exclusion as a different mechanism entirely, "gambling management tools" they've called it.

... Did you see the edit on my previous post....

Still working my way through it.

 

[maxd]

7.41
We are therefore proposing to introduce a social responsibility code provision (3.5.1) that would require winnings to be withheld from those who have breached a self-exclusion agreement and the associated stake or participation fee forfeited. The benefit of this measure would be to provide individuals who had self excluded with a disincentive to breach their agreement. To be effective, the practice would need to be widely publicised
and transparent to anyone entering into a self-exclusion agreement. Gambling companies should seek to ensure they did not benefit financially from breaches of self-exclusion, however, for example by donating the winnings and the stake to charities. This condition would need to be included in each self-exclusion agreement.

That makes it pretty clear where they're heading with this, pretty much on-side with what you've been saying.

Again, good work.

That makes it pretty clear where they're heading with this, pretty much on-side with what you've been saying.

Again, good work.

Also, thought it worthwhile to highlight this clause which has been in place for some time:

3.5.3.5
... It is not sufficient merely to prevent an individual from withdrawing funds from their customer account whilst still accepting wagers from them.

I think this is a stick that (more than) a few casinos need to be prodded with. Happily accepting wagers from SE players _until_ they win and want to withdraw is not at all kosher.

 

[dunover]

That makes it pretty clear where they're heading with this, pretty much on-side with what you've been saying.

Again, good work.



Also, thought it worthwhile to highlight this clause which has been in place for some time:


I think this is a stick that (more than) a few casinos need to be prodded with. Happily accepting wagers from SE players _until_ they win and want to withdraw is not at all kosher.

 

[Erik]

Hi All

I see that the thread has morphed a bit from the original post, but still a current topic that should be discussed.
Regarding the clause about SE on one site should prohibit play on sister sites is there of course to protect players who have chosen they need it.

The whole reason these systems are even in place and needed to receive a UKGC license is that a player should never suffer financially if he has chosen to ask the casino for help to limit his gambling.

Ofcourse it would be best if always the player who is SE on one site wouldnt be able to signup on the next, but sometimes for various reason one slipps through the cracks and manages to play anyway. We will as soon as we discover this ofcourse impose the SE on the new account and "turn the clock back" in terms of play so it will be as if the player never played at the casino. This way the player will never suffer from the fact that he managed to play. And by suffer i obviously mean that he will not be in a worse position than he was before.

If a player would be allowed to keep his winnings if he won but not get his deposits back if he lost, then the whole SE becomes mute and the player who choose to get our help to limit his gambling risk loosing his money, and hence be in a worse situation. He will also have no incentive to try to circumvent his SE since he can get no upside from it.

I understand that players who win might see it as unfair, but i strongly believe that this is the responsible and correct way to handle this. As well it is in accordance with the aim to protect the players who need it.

Best Regards
Erik

 

[spintee]

Hi All

I see that the thread has morphed a bit from the original post, but still a current topic that should be discussed.
Regarding the clause about SE on one site should prohibit play on sister sites is there of course to protect players who have chosen they need it.

The whole reason these systems are even in place and needed to receive a UKGC license is that a player should never suffer financially if he has chosen to ask the casino for help to limit his gambling.

Ofcourse it would be best if always the player who is SE on one site wouldnt be able to signup on the next, but sometimes for various reason one slipps through the cracks and manages to play anyway. We will as soon as we discover this ofcourse impose the SE on the new account and "turn the clock back" in terms of play so it will be as if the player never played at the casino. This way the player will never suffer from the fact that he managed to play. And by suffer i obviously mean that he will not be in a worse position than he was before.

If a player would be allowed to keep his winnings if he won but not get his deposits back if he lost, then the whole SE becomes mute and the player who choose to get our help to limit his gambling risk loosing his money, and hence be in a worse situation. He will also have no incentive to try to circumvent his SE since he can get no upside from it.

I understand that players who win might see it as unfair, but i strongly believe that this is the responsible and correct way to handle this. As well it is in accordance with the aim to protect the players who need it.

Best Regards
Erik

1st off there are a few things in that statement I picked up on,

No1 is I like to say thank you for putting your sister sites in the terms, If the OP had a read than it should not of been no bother,

SE on one site should prohibit play on sister sites is there of course to protect players who have chosen they need it

This may be true, But if so why not nothing in place to stop this? Better still alot of people have stated they have not SE but simply took a break yet still denied winnings, May I say after the fact they won and not before,

but sometimes for various reason one slipps through the cracks

The only cracks I can see is that players are not getting flagged before hand,


If a player would be allowed to keep his winnings if he won but not get his deposits back if he lost, then the whole SE becomes mute and the player who choose to get our help to limit his gambling risk loosing his money

Alot of people do NOT need help,Just p*ssed of losing all the time, Yes they should not SE but take note alot donot and take a break, Casino interpent this in the other way,Unless the rules are clear who is to know?

We have been warned not to SE but not all read forums or know about all this business, Forget any scripts if its that hard, Just put in big written on the sign ,


Again please do not take this personal, But players are not mind readers, On this occasion it is there own fault as your clearly state in rules about your other sites,

I have nothing against your sites and have a odd minor deposit now and than, But get tuened of as run from the EM night mare

 

[dunover]

Hi All

I see that the thread has morphed a bit from the original post, but still a current topic that should be discussed.
Regarding the clause about SE on one site should prohibit play on sister sites is there of course to protect players who have chosen they need it.

The whole reason these systems are even in place and needed to receive a UKGC license is that a player should never suffer financially if he has chosen to ask the casino for help to limit his gambling.

Ofcourse it would be best if always the player who is SE on one site wouldnt be able to signup on the next, but sometimes for various reason one slipps through the cracks and manages to play anyway. We will as soon as we discover this ofcourse impose the SE on the new account and "turn the clock back" in terms of play so it will be as if the player never played at the casino. This way the player will never suffer from the fact that he managed to play. And by suffer i obviously mean that he will not be in a worse position than he was before.

If a player would be allowed to keep his winnings if he won but not get his deposits back if he lost, then the whole SE becomes mute and the player who choose to get our help to limit his gambling risk loosing his money, and hence be in a worse situation. He will also have no incentive to try to circumvent his SE since he can get no upside from it.

I understand that players who win might see it as unfair, but i strongly believe that this is the responsible and correct way to handle this. As well it is in accordance with the aim to protect the players who need it.

Best Regards
Erik

The thing is Erik, I've bolded part of your post and this is the crux of the matter. It's not a case of the odd player slipping through, the fact is that at certain groups ANY player that has SE'd at one site can ALWAYS sign up at another one they haven't previously and NOT be spotted, even after depositing because the checks required under page 59 are non-existent and are only done at withdrawal.

OK, a decent reply that addresses the issue and neutralizes accounts 'making sure player is not financially worse off if breaching a SE'. This is a roundabout way of saying that their play is voided and deposits refunded, winnings not paid. Fair enough, but the issue is compliance with another part of the UKGC rules, which many licensees are NOT making sufficient efforts to follow.

As Spintee says, in the other Kaboo post the player is SOL as you DID have the sister sites in the terms which is good to see, and it's time the other licensees did this.

BUT Page 59 here in bold is NOT being adhered to sufficiently as SE'd players are not being spotted until withdrawal which is NOT good enough at any group. Most sites will spot duplicate details at registration anyway, but if they haven't the simple tools to do this and wait until a withdrawal then there will always be accusations of groups benefitting financially by keeping losing deposits and refunding deposits of winners.
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!

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.

Now as usual the UKGC has been vague and left a bloody great loophole in that it does not specify WHEN it is acceptable to identify SE'd players but I'm bloody 100% sure the intent is NOT to let them get as far as depositing, playing for hours and then attempting a w/d!!!. I think they assume that all their licensees have proper systems like the big bookmakers which will block you immediately at registration as soon as you use a similar mobile number, e-mail, address etc. To be honest this is simple to implement and all licensees should be reasonably expected to do so BUT if they can't then a warning check box on registration would eliminate 95% of SE'd players who would realize they were SE'd at a sister site. Less hassle for the casino and good for RG, but not being implemented.

I can only shake my head in frustration that such an easy task is being ignored at some groups.

 

[MightyDuck]

Any update on the resolution of your case dunover?

 

[cnichas]

Kaboo so far

So I received an email 3 days from Kaboo offering me a massive 400% bonus so I thought i would take it with a deposit of 10 for 40 to make 50, was lucky from the get go and took it 100 then managed to play through the bonus and finished off with 300 now Ive requested a withdrawal and its been pending for about 12hrs , I like the casinos theme and look and can only really judge it on the payout speed I sent my Kyc docs when they first opened so I am fully verified so Im hoping this is a smooth and fast procedure
what you guys think of their payout times?

 

[cnichas]

Awesome Experience at Kaboo Casino

Got my cash in just under 24hrs and have to say that I really think this casino is awsome In every aspect of the casino offerings

 

[lofty1990]

Kaboo - good support lightning withdrawal time - UK debit card

Very pleased with these guys. So much so I decided to pop my post cherry to say how good they are. Deposited by debit card on 31/1/16 £25+£25 welcome bonus. Got lucky and managed to clear wagering with £420 left. Support we very helpful with clarifying all wagering terms etc. Sent docs which were verified with 30 mins withdrew £420 to debit card and have just checked my bank account to see the money has arrived 17:50 1/2/16. I have not experienced anything that quick before to debit/credit card from any casino especially following a withdrawal processed on a weekend. Well done Kaboo, this is how you keep customers.

 

[shevs]

Hi,
So, I know this is my fault for not fully reading t&cs.....but have a question related to the se policy.

Basically I was previously using super lenny and thrills but took a break from both. It's still active at super lenny but not thrills where I have been playing since December. I have deposited £240 since then.

Earlier this week I joined kaboo. I made total deposits of 270 and tried to withdraw 850. Only then did I realise the link and knew it wouldn't go through. This is the case and they have told me they have refunded kaboo deposit.

I have read this thread and others and do accept why this is done. However as they mentioned thrills in the email I contact support to ask if I can still play there as they have allowed me to after the se expired. They have some back and said the account has now been closed and I will get my kaboo deposits back, but not thrills.

Obviously it would have been nice to be able to withdraw bit if not then at least have deposits returned. But aside from that this seems really unfair. They closed two accounts.....One where I try to withdraw more than I put in and I get the lesser amount of the deposits refunded. The other where I've never withdrawn they keep the deposits. If all bets are void at kaboo, surely it should also.apply at thrills? It seems they are happy to cancel withdrawals as bets should never have been allowed but not to stick to that rule if actually the customer doesn't try and withdraw....so the pocket money from bets they claim are void.

Anyway, l don't know whether I should complain further? The thrills account was temp closed but reopened (at a time super lenny account was still.closed)....not sure if that makes a difference. I realise the se is in the terms. But us it ok for them.to treat the accounts differently? Has anyone had an account closed without trying to withdraw?

I feel like I should just have deposited in thrills and withdrawn something that would have triggered the same checks! Though maybe that would have gone through if it was less than my deposits...

 

[Casino2014man]

Hi,
So, I know this is my fault for not fully reading t&cs.....but have a question related to the se policy.

Basically I was previously using super lenny and thrills but took a break from both. It's still active at super lenny but not thrills where I have been playing since December. I have deposited £240 since then.

Earlier this week I joined kaboo. I made total deposits of 270 and tried to withdraw 850. Only then did I realise the link and knew it wouldn't go through. This is the case and they have told me they have refunded kaboo deposit.

I have read this thread and others and do accept why this is done. However as they mentioned thrills in the email I contact support to ask if I can still play there as they have allowed me to after the se expired. They have some back and said the account has now been closed and I will get my kaboo deposits back, but not thrills.

Obviously it would have been nice to be able to withdraw bit if not then at least have deposits returned. But aside from that this seems really unfair. They closed two accounts.....One where I try to withdraw more than I put in and I get the lesser amount of the deposits refunded. The other where I've never withdrawn they keep the deposits. If all bets are void at kaboo, surely it should also.apply at thrills? It seems they are happy to cancel withdrawals as bets should never have been allowed but not to stick to that rule if actually the customer doesn't try and withdraw....so the pocket money from bets they claim are void.

Anyway, l don't know whether I should complain further? The thrills account was temp closed but reopened (at a time super lenny account was still.closed)....not sure if that makes a difference. I realise the se is in the terms. But us it ok for them.to treat the accounts differently? Has anyone had an account closed without trying to withdraw?

I feel like I should just have deposited in thrills and withdrawn something that would have triggered the same checks! Though maybe that would have gone through if it was less than my deposits...

If that is how they want to play it, then they sure as hell should be refunding the Thrills deposits. Contact the rep.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Yet another SE mess, this is getting disgraceful now

Refunding one and not the other because there was no withdrawal submitted is just plain cheating the player out of his deposits he wasn't supposed to be allowed to make at Thrills due to the still active SE at Super Lenny.

Also the question arises as to why was the player allowed to register at Kaboo in the first place when he was clearly on SE at SuperLenny???

You get the feeling that this must be very profitable for the casinos as otherwise they would have introduced some changes long time ago. All good as long as it fills the pockets

Contact the rep, Erik, maybe he can assist you in this matter.

EDIT: sorry for the repeat to contact the rep. was typing at the same time

 

[spintee]

Hi,
So, I know this is my fault for not fully reading t&cs.....but have a question related to the se policy.

Basically I was previously using super lenny and thrills but took a break from both. It's still active at super lenny but not thrills where I have been playing since December. I have deposited £240 since then.

Earlier this week I joined kaboo. I made total deposits of 270 and tried to withdraw 850. Only then did I realise the link and knew it wouldn't go through. This is the case and they have told me they have refunded kaboo deposit.

I have read this thread and others and do accept why this is done. However as they mentioned thrills in the email I contact support to ask if I can still play there as they have allowed me to after the se expired. They have some back and said the account has now been closed and I will get my kaboo deposits back, but not thrills.

Obviously it would have been nice to be able to withdraw bit if not then at least have deposits returned. But aside from that this seems really unfair. They closed two accounts.....One where I try to withdraw more than I put in and I get the lesser amount of the deposits refunded. The other where I've never withdrawn they keep the deposits. If all bets are void at kaboo, surely it should also.apply at thrills? It seems they are happy to cancel withdrawals as bets should never have been allowed but not to stick to that rule if actually the customer doesn't try and withdraw....so the pocket money from bets they claim are void.

Anyway, l don't know whether I should complain further? The thrills account was temp closed but reopened (at a time super lenny account was still.closed)....not sure if that makes a difference. I realise the se is in the terms. But us it ok for them.to treat the accounts differently? Has anyone had an account closed without trying to withdraw?

I feel like I should just have deposited in thrills and withdrawn something that would have triggered the same checks! Though maybe that would have gone through if it was less than my deposits...

Its been mentioned, They cannot have it both ways, Your accounts should of been flagged long time ago, I take it that EV is still playing this silly game,

I would not put all the blame on the casino but this sort of thing should still not be going on, I would not let this rest and also make complaint to the necessary people, I would not know where to start on that one,

Its crazy how they are still doing this, Just imagine all the people that has been hit with this that do not come onto forums, I do hope you put a good bit of money in thrills as you are entitled by U.K rules to claim this back,

When the U.K regs finally get a few brain cells together I do hope that they tell every matrix they have to refund all players in your situation, Rather them than me

 

[shevs]

Thanks everyone......I felt it was wrong so will persue.....


Very stupid question. ...but can I send a private message? And how? I wanted to contact Erik but by going on his profile I can only see an option to post a public comment. I'm using a mobile (and probably being very stupid!) But can't see anything. Thanks.

 

[miksaxxx]

In mobile site is somewhere : go to full site .. Press that and pm is easier..

Thanks everyone......I felt it was wrong so will persue.....


Very stupid question. ...but can I send a private message? And how? I wanted to contact Erik but by going on his profile I can only see an option to post a public comment. I'm using a mobile (and probably being very stupid!) But can't see anything. Thanks.

 

[Harry_BKK]

You are a newbie and only got 3 posts hence you are restricted in what you can do on the forum.

Try the link below, under his name it should say first "add as friend" and then "send private message"

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/34596/

I will report your post to Erik, so he is alerted to the issue.

Best of luck getting your deposits back.

 

[shevs]

Thanks for your help. I had to go out but was able to send a pm now by logging on to full site. I will report back if there's any update.
I did already receive my kaboo deposits (to bank account) about 14 hours after the closure.....so at least that was fast!



Edit: I have just had an email from thrills stating all deposits are now being refunded. So sorted now!

 

[Jono777]

Sure I registered at these and they do take UK



Sent me a huge 400% bonus with 35xWR, deposit £10 play with £50

Guess its back to the drawing board.

Edit: Spoke with support, temporary technical problem and UK are ok.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Thanks for your help. I had to go out but was able to send a pm now by logging on to full site. I will report back if there's any update.
I did already receive my kaboo deposits (to bank account) about 14 hours after the closure.....so at least that was fast!

Edit: I have just had an email from thrills stating all deposits are now being refunded. So sorted now!

There you go, CM has helped another player

Be careful with SE in the future as not all casino groups are doing the right thing like this one. Erik is a great casino manager and always helpful.

 

[spintee]

There you go, CM has helped another player

Be careful with SE in the future as not all casino groups are doing the right thing like this one. Erik is a great casino manager and always helpful.

Eric is the man from all the feed back I have heard, I bet they pulled the cash out there own pockets from the player that was SE, Its a shame as theer is some goods sites running from EV but it looks like EV is pulling all the strings.

Its like owning a shop but being told by somebody else what you can sell in it,

 

[BrianGhattas]

Any updates or feedback about Kaboo? They have sent me e-mails with bonus offers.

I'm a bit wary of casinos where they use the word "Kindly" in their e-mails. It's a bad omen in my case.

 

[fun4all]

Any updates or feedback about Kaboo? They have sent me e-mails with bonus offers.

I have played there a bit and think kaboo is a decent casino - the team behind it (in charge of thrills/superlenny also) - feel trustworthy.

 

[spintee]

Any updates or feedback about Kaboo? They have sent me e-mails with bonus offers.

I'm a bit wary of casinos where they use the word "Kindly" in their e-mails. It's a bad omen in my case.

This is a pretty safe casino from my point of view, I agree that the bonus could be better but that has nothing to do with how safe the casino is, So I have no worries playing here

 

[wobble33]

Played here for the first time today. I noticed its still 30 bonus wr d and b...made a nice cash out. heres a few of my hits! Didn't have any issues apart from refreshing the page when games wouldn't load up, and keep getting that connection message after doing this.

Sent in docs awaiting a reply and my cashout...loving the site obviously!

 

[Erik]

Any updates or feedback about Kaboo? They have sent me e-mails with bonus offers.

I'm a bit wary of casinos where they use the word "Kindly" in their e-mails. It's a bad omen in my case.

Hi BrianGhattas

Feel free to contact me at anytime if you have any questions or if there is anything i can help you with

Regards
Erik

 

[cnichas]

Awesome experience

My experience with Kaboo was awesome even though I played there last few months ago , but my withdrawal was paid out in just under 24hrs into my Neteller account and Erik was super fast at replying to my queries, highly recommend this casino

 

[Pulver]

Kaboo is, like the other casinos in the Betit group, a top notch outfit. Had withdrawal from Kaboo a few days ago, fast payment to Skrill, no hazzle.

 

[interlog]

Hi

Feedback noted and forwarded to the casino team. I belive they wanted to keep the site as clean as possible but if players feel there is not enough information we need to look at the layout.

Thanks for the feedback

Erik

Just going through this topic and remembered that I posted back in September stating I would not sign up because the site doesn't show what games are available and it doesn't indicate deposit/withdrawal fees.

Despite the above mentioned reply from the casino rep, nothing has changed

 

[Jono777]

Anyone else played at any of the casinos is this group today.

Got 100% up to £100 offers at Kaboo and Thrills.

Took Kaboo and managed a small cashout, Thrills not looking so good BUT, these are painful sessions!!

The lag, lengthy spins and constantly having to reload games has been awful. Last sessions ran smooth IIRC but this today/tonight has totally removed the enjoyment.

So annoying and frustrating

 

[brianmon]

Anyone else played at any of the casinos is this group today.

Got 100% up to £100 offers at Kaboo and Thrills.

Took Kaboo and managed a small cashout, Thrills not looking so good BUT, these are painful sessions!!

The lag, lengthy spins and constantly having to reload games has been awful. Last sessions ran smooth IIRC but this today/tonight has totally removed the enjoyment.

So annoying and frustrating

Yeah, I'm having exactly the same problem at Thrills. It looks like EveryMatrix have gone back to how they used to be.

I'll be glad to bust out here tonight

 

[fun4all]

I played earlier and also had a very poor session in terms of lag etc. Very slow spins, constantly kicked out of games, constant "this game is not available" crap. Disappointing.

They are good casino imo and I give them a lot of play, but its 2016 ffs cant we just get games that work.

 

[Jono777]

Yeah, I'm having exactly the same problem at Thrills. It looks like EveryMatrix have gone back to how they used to be.

I'll be glad to bust out here tonight

Just said exactly same to wife lol, painful session.

About to go on Rhino with last £10er, something I'd never usually do, normally grind DOA @ 0.09 and try and build back up.

Soon as I see that £0.00, early night, fuck it lol.

Agreed there are a good group tho

Edit AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

That's me in bed





Good luck to those who have the patience to stick it out lol

What makes it worse is every time the Rhino 'boots me' its reverting to the start up reel set up and taking the 0.40 from cash, not even resuming on the usual 'Incomplete game round'

 

[brianmon]

I was going to do both Kaboo and Thrlls tonight.
But after the piss-poor performance at Thrills, Kaboo won't be seeing a single penny from me

 

[Jono777]

It just won't let me bust :sob:

Another 10 disconnections or so, PC monitor still in one piece for now!

 

[spintee]

Anyone else played at any of the casinos is this group today.

Got 100% up to £100 offers at Kaboo and Thrills.

Took Kaboo and managed a small cashout, Thrills not looking so good BUT, these are painful sessions!!

The lag, lengthy spins and constantly having to reload games has been awful. Last sessions ran smooth IIRC but this today/tonight has totally removed the enjoyment.

So annoying and frustrating

Takes the piss, I still canot see no games? Canot search with the normal search facility, Have to go to the top of left screen where it brings up like 4 games and have to type in game there, Been going on for months, Was told they will let me know but herd fek all back, went back to help and same bullshit, delete cooikes etc, Hang on a minute I told them dozens of times, I have dome all that, Tried another pc, laptop and still the same, Load up on phone ok, the mobile site loads up on my pc also, They just will not get it that its there side, I keep forgetting and make an odd small deposit and say to my self what have I done again, Got a good right to message the rep

I was going to do both Kaboo and Thrlls tonight.
But after the piss-poor performance at Thrills, Kaboo won't be seeing a single penny from me

Same here, About time they left EM,

 

[Jono777]

I have PM'ed Erik with a link to the last few posts in this thread.

Geez I was frustrated and pissed off as F**K last night.

Ended up blowing a decent hit at 0.80 bets just cos of their disconnections, usually I'd play steady and was probably close to a cash out grrrr

 

[spintee]

I have PM'ed Erik with a link to the last few posts in this thread.

Geez I was frustrated and pissed off as F**K last night.

Ended up blowing a decent hit at 0.80 bets just cos of their disconnections, usually I'd play steady and was probably close to a cash out grrrr

I also have pm about the no game show, But it looks like he is AWOL as not been on in a few weeks, I take it he has bound to of had a pm in that time?

 

[Jono777]

I also have pm about the no game show, But it looks like he is AWOL as not been on in a few weeks, I take it he has bound to of had a pm in that time?

Defo matey, they get email notification also so no excuses.

Not saying that this is the case here but it pisses me off a bit when casinos / reps are here daily show boating their product then the minute they're accredited and players are posting positive stuff they do a Shergar on us

 

[spintee]

Defo matey, they get email notification also so no excuses.

Not saying that this is the case here but it pisses me off a bit when casinos / reps are here daily show boating their product then the minute they're accredited and players are posting positive stuff they do a Shergar on us

You hit that nail on the head there,

I agree, Not asking them to carry a casinomeister alarm around there neck 24/7, But why do they seem to fade out once in?

 

[Jono777]

Agreed, as you say no need to eat, breath and s*** CM but I'm also sure part of the terms of accreditation is regular forum presence.

Give and take and all that, after all I only play at CM accredited casinos and I'm a tiny fish in a huge pond so CM is defo worth its weight in gold.

Takes 30 secs to send a PM or a post saying, 'Sorry, we'll sort it' etc, being acknowledged goes a long way to retaining your customers

 

[Erik]

Hey Guys

Sorry for the AFK, I am back in action now.

Regarding the delays and lag issues we are aware of them and we are working with the platform to sort it out the best we can. For you who was playing during these times please PM me you usrenames and I will sort out some comps.

On a more positive note, we have just made it public that we will be moving platforms. We will be leaving EM and joining the IGC platform. We are very excited about this and hopefully it will lead to a much smoother experience with fewer tech issues.

Best Regards
Erik

 

[Jono777]

Hey Guys

Sorry for the AFK, I am back in action now.

Regarding the delays and lag issues we are aware of them and we are working with the platform to sort it out the best we can. For you who was playing during these times please PM me you usrenames and I will sort out some comps.

On a more positive note, we have just made it public that we will be moving platforms. We will be leaving EM and joining the IGC platform. We are very excited about this and hopefully it will lead to a much smoother experience with fewer tech issues.

Best Regards
Erik

Thanks Erik, PM sent.

Yes I'd read that somewhere but did not post anything, glad to hear it is confirmed and a positive move!

 

[brianmon]

Everything worked ok later on, around 1am. So could have been an issue with heavy traffic through EM during the peak period.

I'm so tired today though, after tying to complete the wagering between 1 & 5am, while the going was good