As much as I agree with that, it has to work both ways. It is almost always the smaller groups who put barriers in place and do things to stop players playing there. As a couple of recent examples, Dion's problems with Videoslots, The Grace Media non payment posts, the NYSpins £50k non payment stuff. I'll be surprised if you find many, if any, examples of Bet365, Entain, PaddyPower, Unibet, Skybet etc doing what they are doing.Remember though, every bet is a vote: if you support the mega-casino groups then that's what will survive and dominate the scene. If instead you seek out the smaller, more personal and hands-on casinos then those folks will live another day.
I assume you are meaning larger groups such as LeoVegas, Casumo and suchlike, rather than the big UK bookies though? That was who I was meaning don't give the problems, rather than the first set I mentioned. Not saying the bookies don't have complaints about it, but considering their size and customer base, I think it's pretty obvious they are much less likely to than any of the smaller ones (to include Casumo et all)Actually some of the worst stuff I've seen over the past year or so has come from the larger groups: denial of payment because of self-exclusion at unadvertised sister casinos; avoiding Responsible Gambling codes by moving sister casinos to a different license; abusing SOW and similar rules to frustrate players trying to get their rightful winnings; using the "internal complaints resolution" scam; etc etc.
I agree insofar as it's pretty much a "pick your poison" situation. But from what I see the small casinos are almost always willing to be more open to resolving player issues. Of course we're assuming the casino in question is not some unlicensed, pirated software bog hole which admittedly may not be obvious to the uninitiated. The big guys are far to willing to use their batteries of legal wonks to shave the average punter's returns wherever they can legally get away with it.
IMO the worst of the small shops use cheap, roguey tactics to cheat players and the worst of the corporate shops use big, expensive legalese BS to do the same. Like I said, pick your poison. But at least the smaller shops are more likely to be sensitive to abusing player complaints; the big guys just shrug it off and spend more on advertising.
Quite so. Most notably WillHill et al, Ladbrokes & Co, the Flutter group, etc. Up until recently I would have included Unibet group as well though that's changed for the better recently.I assume you are meaning larger groups such as LeoVegas, Casumo and suchlike, ...
Thats quite surprising to me, as I rarely see complaints about Entain, Flutter etc, whereas obviously Casumo etc do seem to generate a lot.Quite so. Most notably WillHill et al, Ladbrokes & Co, the Flutter group, etc. Up until recently I would have included Unibet group as well though that's changed for the better recently.
No I don't disagree with you at all, and obviously you are better positioned to see type and numbers of complaints than I am, but I do glance through AG, The Pogg, the PABs, review sites such as trustpilot every now and then, just to keep up on whats going on (yes I'm aware of the failings of say Trustpilot, but you can see trends on there), and smaller groups do seem to have proportionally larger numbers of complaints to that of the bookies.Point taken. TBH I think we don't see a flood of WH, Lads, Flutter complaints because players who know the complaints process know that complaining about those mega-groups outside of the process proscribed in their Terms is an exercise in frustration. I could argue the same regarding why there aren't more grumblings on the forums but that's beginning to sound a bit feeble.
just so it's not a one-sided POV (the blackouts are other identifiable info), but i mean, the names couldnt be any clearer; it appears no less than three times and bigger than any other font on the pageSaying the name isn't visible so the document is rejected, when, apparently, it's clear as day.
And thats my point, I know it doesn't apply to you, but it is EXTREMELY rare you get asked for any form of ID in the UK from the big bookies, I've had accounts with them all for over 15 years, my Betfair account has had well over a £5 million turnover, yet I haven't once had to supply any ID whatsoever.just so it's not a one-sided POV (the blackouts are other identifiable info), but i mean, the names couldnt be any clearer; it appears no less than three times and bigger than any other font on the page
You'd have to be willfully blind to not see it
(the red circles were to highlight to the casino, yes, all the relevant info, is, indeed there)
View attachment 156329
View attachment 156330
At first I thought you were referring to meWell What do u Guys think
Sorry, catching up. FWIW I would argue that Videoslots isn't exactly one of the "little guys" anymore. They've diversified into a small and growing group and are now licensed in several jurisdictions. From what I know from the grapevine their estimated value is actually quite high -- several times what, for example, 32Red sold for -- and that puts them more in the mid-range of casinos rather than the small "mom and pop" shops that we've been making mention of. Perhaps even more significant is that fact that VS now have a fairly large staff and are thoroughly lawyered-up. Again, traits of the bigger outfits rather than the small 2, 3, 4-man "indy" casinos.... As an example of what turns people away from smaller casinos when they get petty