casino self-exclusion

[Nifty29]

Hey gang

I was thinking about some recent posts regarding self-exclusion and how difficult it can be especially if you are a member of lots of casinos.

My suggestion, and this would require cooperation from accredited casino reps and Bryan, is to have a system where a cm member could submit a double opt-in web form containing their personal details and this would be sent to all accredited casinos for permanent exclusion.

The member could choose by way of a picklist etc which casinos they wish to be excluded from. An automated email would be sent to the reps concerned who would personally confirm the exclusion via a standard email to the player.

I'm hoping it wouldn't be too difficult to set up and if it works well initially then other casinos with active reps here could come on board.

I really believe it would be a great way to assist those who need help and be a step forward in the promotion of responsible gambling.

 

[3mptyseat]

That is one idea. Has anyone ever seen the way fulltiltpoker does it?

The drop down goes from 12hours to 180 days. To perm exclude urself, u just email support.

And they stick to it... I knew a guy who had his full tilt excluded by his angry gf many a saturday night when she knew the sunday majors were gonna get in the way of her plans, and even when he explained this to chat, they would not budge.

And thats the thing, if a casino will just let someone back in, then it doesnt matter what system is in place...

 

[Nifty29]

That is one idea. Has anyone ever seen the way fulltiltpoker does it?

The drop down goes from 12hours to 180 days. To perm exclude urself, u just email support.

And they stick to it... I knew a guy who had his full tilt excluded by his angry gf many a saturday night when she knew the sunday majors were gonna get in the way of her plans, and even when he explained this to chat, they would not budge.

And thats the thing, if a casino will just let someone back in, then it doesnt matter what system is in place...

Well that's why we would need the support of the accredited casinos to ensure it doesn't happen.

The example above would be great if it could be applied on a global scale and be enforced at all participating operators.

Kinda like a one stop shop for someone that really wants to quit.

 

[BoyleCasino.com]

Self Exclusion is totally different to simply closing an account. If you close your account you're asking that we no longer contact you, whereas a self exclusion is asking us to prevent you from using the account for a set period of time. Personally I take self exclusion very seriously and will not allow anyone to reopen their account or open a new account (where possible) after self excluding, regardless of their explanation. The purpose of self exclusion is made very clear on the site when you do it and any operator that would allow someone to reopen an account after using this facility frankly shouldn't be allowed a license.

Regulators set pretty strict terms where responsible gambling is concerned but suggestions on improving the process would always be welcome.

Paul

 

[PlexRep]

My suggestion, and this would require cooperation from accredited casino reps and Bryan, is to have a system where a cm member could submit a double opt-in web form containing their personal details and this would be sent to all accredited casinos for permanent exclusion.
.

Hi Nifty,

Funnily enough I suggested something similar in my recent mails to GA, Gamcare etc. (Still no reply from any of them despite a follow up mail... guess I should stop holding my breath). After i sent them though I thought about it some more, and realised why it might not be the smartest move.

Imagine an accredited casino goes rogue, or an employee of an accredited casino goes rogue on their own and leaves to set up some shady operation. Yes it's very unlikely, but if it happened then all of a sudden you could have a person of dubious ethics holding a stolen list of people ripe for exploitation I would just worry about such a list reaching the wrong hands some how. On top of that, you still face the issue of the hundreds of casinos not part of the program, so the whole task is a little like beating back the ocean.

These are some of the reasons I think self exclusion options and account closures are better off remaining as a personal choice and action, albeit one that casinos could take more interest and be more pro-active in.

 

[ceks79]

Which casino don not offer permanent self-exclusion?? Ive closed many permanently without problem and tried to re-open them with no success. Mostly Rivals...

 

[aceking123]

hi thats a good idea nifty ! but i would point out exclude polices should be forever not 1year 2 years 3yers etc etc , if a player asks to be excluded , banned , problem gambler there should be a way to lock out there accounts & never let them play at any of there casinos or groups again.

i can tell first hand, that e corga doesnt seem to convay those thoughts i will argue that realy if a casino has had a email to which theyve had & still have as proof of closing excluding policy from a player they should under no circumsatnces reopen a account.
they just let the reopening of a account let the major deposits go through ,then you have a fight with them over it , if this casino was a honest one , they would of stopped this flat out from the start & stated we would like to have you back but as youve e mailed us stating that you wish a life time ban or excluding from our casinos we cannot reopen any account no matter how much we would like you too , or along those lines to me.

 

[Rhyzz]

Is eCogra even a licensing jurisdiction? I thought their business was to settle player complaints and help promote safe and fair play. To get their approval operators will have to agree to abide by their decisions, similar to IBAS for Sportsbooks, but they do not provide licenses to operate as far as I know, the operator still has to maintain an Isle of Man/Alderney/Gib/Malta/KGC/Antigua etc license where they pay tax...

I may be mistaken but that's what I thought.

 

[aceking123]

hi rhyzz yes you could be right indeed , many thx

 

[LinkinFart]

Hey gang

Believe it or not, I was pondering the very same idea about a year ago.

My conclusion was that it would do more harm than good although it sounds good.

First reason is the one presented by PlexRep. There is a way however to safeguard from rogue employees but in the end player ends up doing the same amount of actions upfront plus casinos have additional tasks to do as well plus some third party also has to do extra work. Only benefit would be that once player decides to self exclude this could be done from one central place,but remember this would all have to be done upfront. I dont know exact numbers but I believe that it is not big percentage of players that activate self exclusion so it would be great deal of work for something that may never happen.

Second reason is related to exclusion only on some of the casinos and this is I believe the biggest problem. You proposed accredited casinos, CM might be able to get some of the nonaccredited casinos to get on board as well. Big question is what about rogues? I dont believe that rogues would jump on board with this idea and once player is self excluded from all the worthy casinos only ones left to play will be rogues or ones that are almost rogues which could then go fully rogue with greater potential of getting deposits from self excluded players, or they could go even more along the path to become fully rogue but just not yet there.

Also, from casino perspective, in scenario where all accredited and some nonaccredited casinos participate and if self excluded players are able to control themselves and decide not to play at known rogues and almost rogues, I believe there would be sudden appearance of many new casinos with sole purpose of getting money from specifically that type of players and they could take the money and run, because they`re new and not rogued yet. If done properly even the old rogues could rebrand in such way that no one could recognize them. Again, player would be left with only the bad options on the table to choose from, not saying that all of them would be bad but I`m guessing good deal would be bad for players.

So in the end this idea will work as it should work only in scenario where every casino in existence is participating, which we all know is not likely event in the real world. Otherwise, already addicted or temporarily hooked player will be served on silver platter to rogues and alikes.