Before you exclude at JackpotCity...

[mrmark21]

I was about to exclude myself at Jackpot City tonight after a conversation with one of their chat support agents (JesseE). I found out that Jackpot City will 'upload your details on an international database and you may be excluded from other gambling establishments in the future'.

Does this sound right? I thought when I excluded myself from one casino I just exclude myself from that group. That's a really big worry and I hate to think of other people that have excluded themselves only to find they were then put on this 'international database'. I didn't know that Microgaming even had this kind of database?

I'm quite concerned that Microgaming have a database like this although it just dosent sound right? Could someone please chime in on this maybe the CS agent was just telling me fibs to stop me from excluding myself?

I hope all their customers (especially the ones with gambling problems) don't get told this when they try to exclude themselves from this group. I can imagine it would be quite a deterrent.

 

[Greigssy]

I had a 6 month self exclusion of MG casinos, I cant remember exactly which casino I asked to carry this out but it was a couple of years ago.

I found the self exclusion applied to most MG only casinos, but not 32red group or Ladbrokes or any multi platform casinos that use their own payment processing.

The exclusion blacklist seems to be at the payment processing level as I could log in but couldn't deposit at casinos.

 

[mrmark21]

I had a 6 month self exclusion of MG casinos, I cant remember exactly which casino I asked to carry this out but it was a couple of years ago.

I found the self exclusion applied to most MG only casinos, but not 32red group or Ladbrokes or any multi platform casinos that use their own payment processing.

The exclusion blacklist seems to be at the payment processing level as I could log in but couldn't deposit at casinos.

Out of all honesty the conversation with this particular CS agent started off with a bit of friendly banter but everything changed when he told me about this I was quite disappointed (and furious out of consideration for those with a gambling problem) when the CS agent told me about this database.

I really just thought it was a sneaky tactic to deter players from excluding from their casino. But then I really thought about it and software providers are so secretive these days (understandably) no one would know either way unless they had been excluded.

I'm happy I know about this database now I'm definitely going to be allot more careful about where I exclude myself. So excluding yourself from one means you get put on a database to be excluded from all MG only casinos. That's good to know

 

[vinylweatherman]

It's such a vague and complicated area that players should ONLY exclude where they have a problem with their gambling, and need the help of the operators to combat the urge. The other problem is that this MGS wide list doesn't actually work, it only affects WINNERS who end up playing at another casino covered by the list, and during the routine audit of their first withdrawal are found to have an active exclusion on the database.

Where problem gambling is the issue, it is correct that an industry wide database is used, else it wouldn't be of much help to the problem gambler who could just get sucked in again at another operator. If anything, it needs to be a fully industry wide database, across all softwares and operators, and able to act at the point of registration to block even that first deposit.

Currently, it just covers MGS, and not all of them.

 

[mrmark21]

It's such a vague and complicated area that players should ONLY exclude where they have a problem with their gambling, and need the help of the operators to combat the urge. The other problem is that this MGS wide list doesn't actually work, it only affects WINNERS who end up playing at another casino covered by the list, and during the routine audit of their first withdrawal are found to have an active exclusion on the database.

Where problem gambling is the issue, it is correct that an industry wide database is used, else it wouldn't be of much help to the problem gambler who could just get sucked in again at another operator. If anything, it needs to be a fully industry wide database, across all softwares and operators, and able to act at the point of registration to block even that first deposit.

Currently, it just covers MGS, and not all of them.

Yes your right now that I think of it it's probably a good idea but I felt like the CS agent was using it as a detterant is all.

 

[Greigssy]

When I excluded, I had to print off and sign a document to verify that I was asking for an exclusion from the casinos.

Instead of exclusion or closing the account (which can be reopen anytime) then I would suggest asking for a long term break. I had this done at 32red for 6 months.

 

[irmster]

I've always regretted excluding myself from 32 Red in 2007 as I am now permanently excluded from them and their sister sites. My fault.

 

[Andy Walker]

It's such a vague and complicated area that players should ONLY exclude where they have a problem with their gambling, and need the help of the operators to combat the urge. The other problem is that this MGS wide list doesn't actually work, it only affects WINNERS who end up playing at another casino covered by the list, and during the routine audit of their first withdrawal are found to have an active exclusion on the database.

Where problem gambling is the issue, it is correct that an industry wide database is used, else it wouldn't be of much help to the problem gambler who could just get sucked in again at another operator. If anything, it needs to be a fully industry wide database, across all softwares and operators, and able to act at the point of registration to block even that first deposit.

Currently, it just covers MGS, and not all of them.

I agree.

If you don't like a site or have issues close the account and self exclusion should be global, it's a pity it doesn't work for people that use the casinos that are land based there is an easy solution, like a registered card before use but in the UK they shy away from the responsibility.

 

[nisosbar]

I agree.

If you don't like a site or have issues close the account and self exclusion should be global, it's a pity it doesn't work for people that use the casinos that are land based there is an easy solution, like a registered card before use but in the UK they shy away from the responsibility.

I disagree on your point that a self-exclusion should be global. I'm not even sure what the arguments are in favor of 'should be global'.

But if it were to be global, then it would need to be time-limited, say six months, after which one can put one's self back on the list, but there needs to be recognition that people can change; sex addicts can resume normal sexuality in time; tobacco addicts can quit; some drinkers who are clinically alcoholic can moderate their consumption. Likewise, as some people have stated in other recent threads, overindulgence in gambling can be something that can be controlled, or even stopped entirely. Anyway, that's all just my own opinion.

 

[P.V.]

I was about to exclude myself at Jackpot City tonight after a conversation with one of their chat support agents (JesseE). I found out that Jackpot City will 'upload your details on an international database and you may be excluded from other gambling establishments in the future'.

Does this sound right? I thought when I excluded myself from one casino I just exclude myself from that group. That's a really big worry and I hate to think of other people that have excluded themselves only to find they were then put on this 'international database'. I didn't know that Microgaming even had this kind of database?

I'm quite concerned that Microgaming have a database like this although it just dosent sound right? Could someone please chime in on this maybe the CS agent was just telling me fibs to stop me from excluding myself?

I hope all their customers (especially the ones with gambling problems) don't get told this when they try to exclude themselves from this group. I can imagine it would be quite a deterrent.

I've always looked at this as a three step process.

1. Close my account. (I can't win at your site.)

2. I need a break. (I'm spending too much on your site, I need a break.)

3. Self exclusion, I have a gambling problem, period! (Exclude me from all of your properties!)

Even though I think #3 should be permanent it should be confined within the site/software provider you're dealing with but with the following exception.

The only time your PII, or personally identifiable information should be shared within an international or even a state database for self exclusion would be with your consent only.

You should be in control of your PII and from the OP it appears they're willing to share this information without your consent, not good IMO.

 

[mrmark21]

I've always looked at this as a three step process.

1. Close my account. (I can't win at your site.)

2. I need a break. (I'm spending too much on your site, I need a break.)

3. Self exclusion, I have a gambling problem, period! (Exclude me from all of your properties!)

Even though I think #3 should be permanent it should be confined within the site/software provider you're dealing with but with the following exception.

The only time your PII, or personally identifiable information should be shared within an international or even a state database for self exclusion would be with your consent only.

You should be in control of your PII and from the OP it appears they're willing to share this information without your consent, not good IMO.

Your right on the mark. This also felt as though the CS agent was using it as a detterent to stop me from self excluding myself as well. I found it very dissapointing to see an accredited casino resort to this type of behaviour. This especially made me think about the possible influence this could have over people that suffer from a gambling problem.

Anyway as you said it appears Digimedia is willing to share this personal information without consent from the customer and I agree that certainly isnt good.

 

[mimi26]

Your right on the mark. This also felt as though the CS agent was using it as a detterent to stop me from self excluding myself as well. I found it very dissapointing to see an accredited casino resort to this type of behaviour. This especially made me think about the possible influence this could have over people that suffer from a gambling problem.

Anyway as you said it appears Digimedia is willing to share this personal information without consent from the customer and I agree that certainly isnt good.

I dont see the problem myself, the cs rep was making you aware that it was that you would be excluded from other sites, asking for a self exclusion to me screams like someone may have a gambling problem (that is just my opinion and I am not saying you have), I think its quite responsible for them to exclude the player from other sites too. If it was just a case of not wanting to play there then just closing the account would be the best option. Imagine self excluding from one site then trying to play on another only to find you have been excluded from there too you would kick up a fuss as you were not warned. And for people with gambling problems I dont think they would have any issue from being excluded from other sites.

 

[mrmark21]

I dont see the problem myself, the cs rep was making you aware that it was that you would be excluded from other sites, asking for a self exclusion to me screams like someone may have a gambling problem (that is just my opinion and I am not saying you have), I think its quite responsible for them to exclude the player from other sites too. If it was just a case of not wanting to play there then just closing the account would be the best option. Imagine self excluding from one site then trying to play on another only to find you have been excluded from there too you would kick up a fuss as you were not warned. And for people with gambling problems I dont think they would have any issue from being excluded from other sites.

That is a good point. I didnt actually think of it that way.