CasinoCruise refused to pay my £1700 winnings after making withdrawal.

[CasinoCruiseRep]

So if excluded from one of over 60 everymatrix casinos is gambling problem then how all rest everymatrix casinos can allowed same players to open acconts and collect deposits without problem ... Only in some day player win then got voided winings with reason - excluded in one of 60 everymatrix brands in past.


In one of your previous posts figured even Slotobank casino ( poor quality brands using often roqe practice) So if somone make excluded from roqe everymatrix brand Slotobank Then from this moment dont recived any money from his winnings in all rest everymatrix brands.

But can still play open new acconts and make deposits - just cant make withdrawal......

And one more things if somone make self excluded in roqe Slotobank - Self excluded always automatic is called gambling problem? - Or if somone just dont like casino / dont wonna recived no more spam to emails and after reading a lot complains in web decided close acconts so make self excluded.

Somone can say - You shoud go to live chat and ask to close acconts or send email with asking to close acconts - Mayby yes but in poor quality / roqe casinos like example slotobank - support team often just ignoring request like this and only way is make selfexcluded .

This is not only this person issue this is topic importand to all players who have in past any self exclude in one of all 60 everymatrix brands becose in this case all of them allowed to open acconts and colect deposits but not allowed to pay winnings

You can't self exclude as an alternative for closing your account. If a casino refuses to close your account you can complain on the forums and if that doesn't work you can approach their regulator.

Self exclusion only relates to gambling issues and legally a player that self excludes needs to be treated by the casino licensee as someone with a self confessed gambling problem.

 

[fun4all]

I'm sorry you feel the way you do but legally once you have SE the licensee must return your deposit and close your account, which was what happened.

So why did CasinoCruise not do the above and allow multiple deposits from the user? They only decided to close the account and not pay when a large withdrawal happened after multiple deposits?

How come other (much more reputable than CasinoCruise) everymatrix sites continue to take the OP's action and have not done such things to him?

How come Casino Cruise refuse to provide details of anything to the OP and everymatrix themselves ignores him?

This whole things stinks in my opinion, it looks to me like the OP is telling the truth here and I am not trusting casinocruise anymore if I am honest.

 

[CasinoCruiseRep]

So why did CasinoCruise not do the above and allow multiple deposits from the user? They only decided to close the account and not pay when a large withdrawal happened after multiple deposits?

How come other (much more reputable than CasinoCruise) everymatrix sites continue to take the OP's action and have not done such things to him?

How come Casino Cruise refuse to provide details of anything to the OP and everymatrix themselves ignores him?

This whole things stinks in my opinion, it looks to me like the OP is telling the truth here and I am not trusting casinocruise anymore if I am honest.

Like many casinos the verification happens when a player wants to withdraw. That said we know we need to improve the process and close SE player accounts as quick as possible so they do not have to waste their time gambling for free as their deposit needs to be refunded regardless.

 

[Tirilej]

You can't self exclude as an alternative for closing your account. If a casino refuses to close your account you can complain on the forums and if that doesn't work you can approach their regulator.

Self exclusion only relates to gambling issues and legally a player that self excludes needs to be treated by the casino licensee as someone with a self confessed gambling problem.

I've not read the English version of your rule, just the Swedish.
There it says nothing about self exclusion mean the same as having a gambling problem. It actually just say ''If you feel you need to take a break from gambling, you can do that from 7 days and up to a year.
It also says it's not the same as closing an account, but it doesn't say what the difference is.

Since I'm Swedish I know that casinos also use different words in Swedish to translate self exclusion but there aren't any in Swedish that means the same as those words.

How in the world do you expect any player to know what you mean if you don't say it? I would never understand what consequenses there could be by choosing the wrong option. It is a trap. I think you at least need to take a closer look at the Swedish rules. The English ones I let someone else check.

 

[The Dude]

Lloyd as a Co - Owner of CasinoCruise you can't make statements like that above and not honour them.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I have been sent no evidence of any self exlusion from either you or EveryMatrix. As long as forum members see what type of casino this is my job is done. They can make their own minds up if they want to trust you with thier deposits. I have made a formal complaint to the UKGC in relation to you having no adequate complaint process or arbitration third party procedure or if you do I have not been offered it. I will also be sending a letter of notification to EveryMatrix London office this week. I would send one to you as well seeing as CasinoCruise took my deposits and I hold your casino responsible for sending me the email to my private email inviting me to open an account but seeing as you are in Israel that is not a practical option. I will never make an online deposit to any casino ever again after this fiasco. If a casino ever refuses to pay and honour a genuine wager it is time to leave.
...

I think you are getting too wound up over this. Obviously, the whole situation is regrettable, but you are making some bold claims. What evidence to you have that the casino sent you an email inviting you to open an account? You have not produced this email - yet you have referred to this at least once or twice. I am making an educated guess that the email was from an affiliate - not the casino. How is an affiliate supposed to know that you quit? And if you did quit - why did you open an account there?

I agree that this is a disappointing outcome, but please don't twist the facts around.

 

[Mouche12]

Valid point Tirilej! VWM asked earlier whether the OP's SE is indeed an SE or merely a "cool off period". I am anxious to know how this will proceed. Lloyd, you and the CEO can surely come up with something better than just returning the OP's deposits - the way it stands now is IMO damaging to your casino's reputation.

 

[dunover]

I feel vindicated now. I did start a thread recently and reported it to Bryan/Mods, along the lines of "As a part of their accreditation, can't the casinos be required to do a simple edit of a few lines of html in their T&Cs whereby ALL casinos/skins in their group which can affect another casino in that group are listed."

As I pointed out then, this would save Max from unnecessary PABs regarding bonus duplicity and refused winnings due to that, as well as refusing winnings for the SE reason, as is the case here..... So we have another lengthy thread, a disgruntled customer refused winnings and the rep then has to take time out also to put his side of the story.

To ALL casinos - For pity's sake start updating your terms with a list of linked sites that can affect either bonus takers or SE players when they attempt to withdraw from your sites. Everyone wins, less work for Max/CM and the reps and less disappointed customers. How hard can it be???

 

[TowerQuest]

I have had accounts with Guts, Thrills etc which are all part of the EveryMatrix Group in the last nine months and deposited 4 figure sums and never made a withdrawal. No one from these casinos or EveryMatrix has contacted me saying I am self excluded from one casino in their group and offered to return my deposits. Surely this basis of not paying me my winnings must work both ways if you are applying this rule not honour a wager which was played in good faith.

Guts Casino not longer a part of EveryMatrix Group for a couple of months.

 

[spintee]

Before we start beating up the casino rep, let's keep in mind that the OP and casino rep have been in communication with one another about the whole thing.

Further, if you are self excluding, then you should not be playing at all. Self exclusion is not a tool to close an account - it's saying you have a gambling problem and need to quit. It is not something anyone should take lightly to include the player.

I also don't feel that anyone should be pointing fingers at the casino for "enticing" the player with an email. This is obviously an affiliate tactic and the OP probably was either spammed, or signed up to someone's spam list somehow.

I'll check to see if the casino rep wants to join in to this fracas. I'm not even sure he knows that this thread exists - it's up to the OP to contact the casino rep to let him know that there is a thread to be monitored. Please put the torches and pitchforks down until we hear from LLoyd.

Sorry to jump in my friend, But the bit highlighted is abit wrong Just because people exclude does not mean they have a problem or need to quit,

I agree its not a tool to use to stop playing at certain sites, And we have found out it brings alot of problems, I believe dunover admitted today that he excluded from such a site as he was pi$$ed of with wrong terms,

Its a bad idea really as if someone ask to just shut them of for a while than next thing they on another site and win to be told sorry you are excluded from other site? We not paying you, Its been said and done many of times, People have not excluded just a shut of but words has been took for an exclude,

All sites should have an auto do it your self, 1hr 24hr, 1 wek, 1 month, if use this than no reason to be denied winnings from other sites, I will add an example but will not mention the site, There is no exclusion there but at least its there, I no all U.K regs state they have to have this, But some ask whats the reason & my saying is ask no questions I tell no lies,

Any way hope all had a good weekend & no hang overs
Edit::: There is a self exclude, Eye sight is on the blink

 

[spintee]

Guts Casino not longer a part of EveryMatrix Group for a couple of months.

I believe there still connected, Coret me if I am wrong, I no there was doing there own stuff

 

[spintee]

You can't self exclude as an alternative for closing your account. If a casino refuses to close your account you can complain on the forums and if that doesn't work you can approach their regulator.

Self exclusion only relates to gambling issues and legally a player that self excludes needs to be treated by the casino licensee as someone with a self confessed gambling problem.

I repeat,

You can't self exclude as an alternative for closing your account Agreed and if people do its there own doing, But they should be signs saying you will not be able to play xyz,

If a casino refuses to close your account you can complain on the forums and if that doesn't work you can approach their regulator.

Any decent casino will close an account, Not all people come on to forums, Also speaking to the regulator is falling on deaf ears, Useless

 

[me_and_ed]

This is enough of a red flag for me, every one of my EM casino accounts closed.

 

[Barrasboy]

Guts Casino not longer a part of EveryMatrix Group for a couple of months.

According to the EveryMatrix website as of today they are. I attach a link.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Does anyone actually know what casino brands are in the entire EveryMatrix Group? There is the standard list on the company's website but when you do a quick search on the internet they seem to be partners with a lot of casinos that are not on their list. It may be helpful to avoid these situations if someone can show a complete list of EveryMatrix casino partners and make it a permanent fixture on the forum so members do not walk into this trap again and again.

Mark

 

[Barrasboy]

I think you are getting too wound up over this. Obviously, the whole situation is regrettable, but you are making some bold claims. What evidence to you have that the casino sent you an email inviting you to open an account? You have not produced this email - yet you have referred to this at least once or twice. I am making an educated guess that the email was from an affiliate - not the casino. How is an affiliate supposed to know that you quit? And if you did quit - why did you open an account there?

I agree that this is a disappointing outcome, but please don't twist the facts around.

Fully respect your position CM but I am more than happy to forward you a copy of the email. The email had the email address Cruise. Being a simple layman I assume CasinoCruise would know if people were using their name to send emails. I have received another one since, even though CasinoCruise customer service stated last week they would sort this out and stop me getting these emails.

I have stated nothing that I can't back up.

Warmest wishes
Mark

 

[spintee]

According to the EveryMatrix website as of today they are. I attach a link.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Does anyone actually know what casino brands are in the entire EveryMatrix Group? There is the standard list on the company's website but when you do a quick search on the internet they seem to be partners with a lot of casinos that are not on their list. It may be helpful to avoid these situations if someone can show a complete list of EveryMatrix casino partners and make it a permanent fixture on the forum so members do not walk into this trap again and again.

Mark

Its verry hard, Especially that the U.K website for gabling commission is wish wash (back to front)
I have came across sites I nether heard of and pigy backing of other sites, Alot is for getting a U.K licence, This is for a number of reasons, Either to sh%t to get one, Running of rubbish sites which they still do, Just pinching a licence of EM,

I am no ecpert but the amount of complaints about EM in recent times and there sites is enough to put any person of, Should not be aloud and if the U.K had the right people on board I bet alot more sites will be closed,

This is my opion only and I am open to any debate

 

[Mouche12]

Unfortunately I don't Barrasboy. Is it worth the money and effort (besides your other actions) to have a lawyer look at this and see if you can somehow retrieve your winnings?

 

[syntynyt]

i think EM put themselves and their clients in a vulnerable position for not putting a SE system in place that block certain players from further registrations. if someone now wants to strike a casino/EM, they can easily SE at one of their sites, then deposit multiple times at the one they aim to trash until they hit and the shitstorm is guaranteed when withdrawal will not be processed. player will get deposits back and EM/casino image will suffer. what is worse in this business than not paying winnings? OP is genuine, not saying this about him! is just a scenario that can simple happen.

a SE system also must deal with players that are already registered to multiple casinos of EM network. if for example im regular at Jetbull but also at Next and Casinoluck and i SE at the first, it should automatically stop me to play the laters. with the current state its a loss-loss situation for all involved. i boycotted EM by stopping playing their clients since that awful lag/balance bouncing that lasted too much i could handle. now i would do it again. amateurs

 

[Tirilej]

I must say I don't hold this against Casino Cruise and I know Lloyd is doing what he can. I blame Every Matrix all the way because they are the ones who create issues both for the players but also for the casinos that are using their license.

When it comes to what casinos it is about, the list the rep posted should be the ones. Only them becuse other casinos are just using software from them, and they have their own licence. I saw Super Lenny was on that list and since they are a sister casino to Thrills they shouldn't be there. They have their own license so that's confusing. Did you get that list from EM then please check with them? We need a list we can trust completely!
Could we then make all those casinos to put them in their T&C's and as a list sent to a player that self exclude also, we've come a long way.

If it states in the bottom or about us on a casinos website that it's run by Every Matrix then it is. You can always check the licence number yourself.

The op said he had played at Guts and Thrills. They both have their own licence now so they have nothing to do with his SE. He must have SE'ed from another one on that list and he should of course know which one it is, or be told.

If he as he said have made deposits at several of them after his SE then he will get those deposits back too, but his winnings he won't get if they can prove that he had self excluded. It stinks but they don't have much choice as it seems.

 

[winbig]

IMHO, there should be an "internet-wide" self exclude list. If a player self-excludes themselves (not a "cooling off period",) they should be barred from all online casinos, not just the one. Think about it - if they're self excluding themselves from a casino, then they're admitting they have a problem and shouldn't be allowed to gamble anywhere.

 

[Jasminebed]

While the rep listed a handful of casinos, it is my understanding there are many more than just those under the Everymatrix licence. Perhaps they are just the UKGC licenced ones.

Guts WAS Everymatrix until recently. If his deposits were under the EM licence, then they should be refunded I would hope. I would check with the Guts rep about that, and if he is still permitted to play.

It's a mess from start to finish,

As for self-excluding: It was recently suggested to me by a CSR at an accredited casino that I self-exclude, as I could not permanently close my account. My issue was not gambling related, but in relation to a problem with my Visa Card and their system. I said I did not want to do that, it could open up a whole can of worms. They assured me it would not.

I have been a CM member and read many of these threads, the average joe probably would not have.

 

[paul7388]

IMHO, there should be an "internet-wide" self exclude list. If a player self-excludes themselves (not a "cooling off period",) they should be barred from all online casinos, not just the one. Think about it - if they're self excluding themselves from a casino, then they're admitting they have a problem and shouldn't be allowed to gamble anywhere.

The whole problem tho is to many people that don't have a problem self exclude.

Ive never got why people close accounts and self exclude at casinos every week for various reasons from losing to not getting a bonus etc. etc.

But sadly many people instead of just not playing at a casino they don't like self exclude. They have no gambling problem yet think self excluding from casinos is best thing to do. Now we are seeing all the problems this is causing.

Theres even a trial going on in Glasgow now where people can self exclude from all bookies in area by making a phone call. How the hell that's going to work I don't know. Just waiting now for people to start saying they had self excluded from all bookies yet a member of staff let them walk in and blow their wages.

 

[dunover]

IMHO, there should be an "internet-wide" self exclude list. If a player self-excludes themselves (not a "cooling off period",) they should be barred from all online casinos, not just the one. Think about it - if they're self excluding themselves from a casino, then they're admitting they have a problem and shouldn't be allowed to gamble anywhere.

Sorry that would be a disaster. If many casinos don't distinguish as Spintee says between SE and 'taking a break' then a player could unintentionally ruin their future chance to play, and only the rogues would take their money. The rogues would cash-in - and well!

I have used the SE button myself, and have never had a problem gambling issue, but when pissed-off with a bad service have used it as the quickest way to divorce myself from the casino.

If there was ever to be a central register of problem gamblers online, then it would have to be by carefully administered application and in detail via a specific site independent of any casino, i.e. GA.

 

[winbig]

Well, as long as there was a central database that players could join for self exclusion, I don't see it being a problem. As long as it was explained to them thoroughly before joining the list that they would not be able to play at any online casino after exclusion, and offer them the option of a "cooling off" period instead of this permanent option.

I know for Pennsylvania, they offer a 1 or 5 year SE option as well as a lifetime ban from statewide casinos. Caesars Entertainment group takes it one step further by barring play at any of their properties in the WORLD from any patron that is on any state's SE list.

 

[Przecinek]

As for self-excluding: It was recently suggested to me by a CSR at an accredited casino that I self-exclude, as I could not permanently close my account. My issue was not gambling related, but in relation to a problem with my Visa Card and their system. I said I did not want to do that, it could open up a whole can of worms. They assured me it would not.
.

Yeah I was told that once too. If some casinos don't take self-exclusion seriously, how can players.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The big problem with the position of EveryMatrix is that they expect their players to understand corporate law, as who is related to whom is anything but clear in layman's terms. The average player see an internet filled with different casinos, all run by different people. The way licensing works is different everywhere, and is often obfuscation by design in order to hide the true owners behind a web of shell companies. It is STILL unclear who owns what in this case, as the position of EveryMatrix is ambiguous, it appears to be a subcontractor that operates the casino on behalf of the owners, so it should be the owners, not EveryMatrix, making the important operating decisions.

The responsible gambling provisions are NOT meant to be a means for casino operators to screw over their players, so it's simply not good enough for the internal communications to be so lax that players are able to play through numerous deposits with no possibility of winning, and not know this until they DO win and withdraw. This method of implementation may also put EveryMatrix in breach of the UKGC provisions as they may not be refunding the deposits of losing players who have self excluded as they are reliant on checks at the time of withdrawal.

The email from an affiliate can't just be dismissed out of hand, as in law the company is still ultimately responsible for the actions of it's contractors and promoters, and if the email itself is in breach of the rules on marketing, the UKGC will be going after the casino, not the affiliate.

EveryMatrix seems to be saying that they have to abide by the UKGC rules exactly, without any leeway for specific circumstances, yet when it's EveryMatrix that hasn't "played by the book", they are arguing that they should be allowed some leeway themselves because they can't effectively police their affiliates, and don't have a completely foolproof self exclusion system operating across the EveryMatrix brands.

The "same license number" argument is dead in the water really, as whilst the casino is relying on it here to prove a connection beyond doubt between sites, we have in other threads reps vigorously arguing that the same license number CANNOT be taken as evidence of a connection between sites, and this tends to crop up when one or two sites operating under such a license have gone rogue, and others are trying to disassociate their own brands from the rogue label. We have even seen this same argument put forward by other EveryMatrix casino reps where a couple of notorious rogues have damaged the reputation of the brand as a whole.


In essence, the rep for casino Cruise is arguing that we should treat them as though they are a sister site to Slotobank in this situation, but if so, we should apply this consistently, and this would explain why this issue has had a couple of players saying that EveryMatrix as a whole should be considered a brand to avoid. The argument presented here also means that it's EveryMatrix that has screwed over those Slotobank players who have not been paid, so they are not getting paid on the say so of EveryMatrix, not the rogue operators of Slotobank. Since EveryMatrix call the shots on who should be paid, why haven't they just overruled Slotobank and paid those players, and then seized the money to cover it from what they would otherwise have distributed back to the owners of Slotobank in net share of the profits.

 

[partyhummel]

player cant remember act of self exclusion?

if the player definetely cannot remember to have self excluded evrymatrix and casino cruise should crosscheck if there was a mistake in database... therefore they also should share the selfexclusion info with the player so the situation can be solved.

 

[fun4all]

Great post Vinylweatherman. Sometimes it feels like casinos are out of control and just make the rules to suit themselves. UK regulation will bring legal consequences for them as well as players should they misbehave.

 

[The_Chef_]

Great post Vinylweatherman. Sometimes it feels like casinos are out of control and just make the rules to suit themselves. UK regulation will bring legal consequences for them as well as players should they misbehave.

This is why I am going to focus my future deposits to the accredited casinos and especially those, who have a "clean registry".
Would be devastating to hit that Big One on not-so-trustworthy casino and fight to get your money.

 

[lotusch]

I can see EM ending up in the rogue pit at some stage.
What an ignorant bunch of crocks.
Think I am gonna be very careful now as well,trying to avoid EM operated casino's.

As for reading this whole thread just this evening,I am 100% with OP.
I think he has a very strong case.
Even though this casino is operated through the EM platform,they still could have been lenient and show a bit more of empathy towards OP and paid him his winnings..After that they still could have parted separate ways by closing OP's account.
But at least I would have had some respect for the casino.
Now I can't help just feeling this whole case stinks.

The big companies raking in millions and millions and deny a 1700 quid win for a customer that had no idea he had done something wrong.

Blegh!

 

[quber]

That was a mistake of mine to write what I did to you without fully checking the situation. I was over motivated to try and help you but as things to turn out - the situation is as I posted above.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do but legally once you have SE the licensee must return your deposit and close your account, which was what happened.

All the best,
Lloyd

So the OP self excluded at another casino and no-one will tell him which one. He should be told the casino and the date then every deposit to an EM casino since that date should be refunded.

The Casinos can not put themselves in a win win situation where only winners get their deposits back and all losing players lose their deposits, this is rogue behaviour and i believe a warning should be stickied on the 1st page

 

[CasinoCruiseRep]

So the OP self excluded at another casino and no-one will tell him which one. He should be told the casino and the date then every deposit to an EM casino since that date should be refunded.

The Casinos can not put themselves in a win win situation where only winners get their deposits back and all losing players lose their deposits, this is rogue behaviour and i believe a warning should be stickied on the 1st page

The Player is in the UK and of course under UK GC regulations and the player knows that he SEed from another EM casino and which one as well. It also states very clearly in our footer that we are running on the EM license.

As soon as EM realised the player was already SEed on their license they closed his account and refunded his deposit. The system in place needs to be automatic, of course, so that the player can't even register at another EM licensed casino during their SE cool down period and this system upgrade is in development at the moment.

UK GC are in fact moving towards setup things so that if a player SEed from any UK licensed casino they will not be able to play at any other UK licensed casino for the cooling off period. Of course, this is just in planning but it shows the UK GC attitude towards SE.

 

[spintee]

The Player is in the UK and of course under UK GC regulations and the player knows that he SEed from another EM casino and which one as well. It also states very clearly in our footer that we are running on the EM license.

As soon as EM realised the player was already SEed on their license they closed his account and refunded his deposit. The system in place needs to be automatic, of course, so that the player can't even register at another EM licensed casino during their SE cool down period and this system upgrade is in development at the moment.

UK GC are in fact moving towards setup things so that if a player SEed from any UK licensed casino they will not be able to play at any other UK licensed casino for the cooling off period. Of course, this is just in planning but it shows the UK GC attitude towards SE.

I know its out of your control but at least stick a big note up saying do not sign up if excluded from other EM sites,

But this is the problem, People do not no about fourms or use them, I bet there are thousands of players that have excluded from some sites and are carrying on as normal, Without knowing whats going to happen, Even if they see the excluded part about EM than how on earth are they going to know whats sites,

EM and casino's that are running from them are going to get a shock, It will not belong before you are told to refund every players balance back that have excluded from sites and deposit on some after, This is going to run in to thousands of ££££
& all the time,

 

[Jasminebed]

I am not privy to the pms the Casino may have had regarding his other self-exclusion, but his opening post seemed to indicate he didn't know which one, and hence his inquiries. I'm not saying it is so in the OP's case, but I sometimes can't recall what happened at what casino from months ago.

With self-exclusions only being picked up on withdrawals, those players who sincerely do have a gambling addiction and self-excluded somewhere for those reasons, one of the biggest problem many of them face is the lack of ability to stop playing and withdraw. In an unrelated thread in quit gambling, a player posted how they emptied their bank account in a session, and failed to withdraw at one point when they were $300 ahead. Some may never withdraw. A friend tells me her mom regularly plays online, has many time had balances into four figures and has NEVER ONCE made a cashout.

Who holds an Everymatrix licence (or operates under it, whichever is the correct term) changes from time to time as well. Some new ones appear, some like Guts leave to get their own licence.

Those casinos accredited here should have a duty to list them BY NAME in terms and conditions, and keep that list current.

Of course there will still be players fail to read terms, and we can only ask casinos to do so much.

Perhaps every new player should be checked for self-exclusion within 2 business days. If name and birthdate match, that should be enough to trigger further checks, regardless if the player has moved, changed their email or ISP, or bought a new computer.

 

[quber]

You can't self exclude as an alternative for closing your account. If a casino refuses to close your account you can complain on the forums and if that doesn't work you can approach their regulator.

Self exclusion only relates to gambling issues and legally a player that self excludes needs to be treated by the casino licensee as someone with a self confessed gambling problem.

How is a player to know that self exclusion relates only to gambling problems? The below is from your Terms and conditions, there is no mention of gambling issues, all you say is 'take a break', in fact if a player wants to permanently self exclude he has to state his reasons for doing so. A player could self exclude for a year and you haven't asked for a reason and just assumed he has an issue.


29.3 Self-exclusion - Should you need to take a break from gambling, we provide a self-exclusion facility which can be activated by the customer within 'My Account' or by contacting Support. Self-exclusion means that your account will remain closed for a minimum period of 7 days to a maximum period of 1 year, and will not be reactivated under any circumstances during the exclusion period. This is the major difference to a standard account closure request. Should you wish to activate permanent self-exclusion you may do so by contacting Support at [email protected] stating your reasons and you will be permanently blocked with immediate effect.


There is also no mention that he will be self excluded at any other casinos

 

[asparkes15]

The Player is in the UK and of course under UK GC regulations and the player knows that he SEed from another EM casino and which one as well. It also states very clearly in our footer that we are running on the EM license.

As soon as EM realised the player was already SEed on their license they closed his account and refunded his deposit. The system in place needs to be automatic, of course, so that the player can't even register at another EM licensed casino during their SE cool down period and this system upgrade is in development at the moment.

UK GC are in fact moving towards setup things so that if a player SEed from any UK licensed casino they will not be able to play at any other UK licensed casino for the cooling off period. Of course, this is just in planning but it shows the UK GC attitude towards SE.

It's hilarious how you think this is acceptable behaviour. Let's be honest here, these rules are being made up as they go along to protect CasinoCruise's interests. Interest being money.

 

[CasinoCruiseRep]

It's hilarious how you think this is acceptable behaviour. Let's be honest here, these rules are being made up as they go along to protect CasinoCruise's interests. Interest being money.

Not too sure how to respond to that comment about my integrity

I do agree that the current process is not good but I'm not making things up. That I can promise you.

Cheers

 

[dunover]

The Player is in the UK and of course under UK GC regulations and the player knows that he SEed from another EM casino and which one as well. It also states very clearly in our footer that we are running on the EM license.

As soon as EM realised the player was already SEed on their license they closed his account and refunded his deposit. The system in place needs to be automatic, of course, so that the player can't even register at another EM licensed casino during their SE cool down period and this system upgrade is in development at the moment.

UK GC are in fact moving towards setup things so that if a player SEed from any UK licensed casino they will not be able to play at any other UK licensed casino for the cooling off period. Of course, this is just in planning but it shows the UK GC attitude towards SE.

HOW MANY EFFING TIMES?????????????????

IF YOU GUYS CANNOT PROVIDE A SIMPLE LIST, AS I'VE SAID UNTIL BLUE IN THE FACE, OF LINKED CASINOS THAT WILL/CAN AFFECT A NEW PLAYER WHETHER FOR BONUS OR SE REASONS THEN ALL THIS BS IS DOWN TO YOU!!

This means 'simple' as in the new player doesn't have to conduct a licence search. Funny how your sites sharing the same licence allow SE'd players to sign up (as to be fair you mentioned) with others under the licence and this miraculously isn't noticed until they withdraw any winnings.

If you ask me this is a no-lose scam and it stinks to high heaven.

1. SE'd from linked site-Player is allowed to sign up and play. Loses and maybe shuts/SE's account. You collect money nothing more said.

2. Same player allowed to sign wins. Suddenly it's observed you have a reason not to pay them.

These two scenarios occur firstly because you don't spot player and stop them at sign-up stage and secondly because (notwithstanding the first)you DO NOT specify the sites linked.

Be honest reps:
How times have your casinos in scenario #1 above, contacted a player with the following e-mail:

"Dear Plonker,

We noticed last week you signed up with us at Donkey Bollocks Slots and deposited and lost e350 and then SE'd your account. It has come to our attention that prior to joining us you had been a member of Grunter Games which share a licence with us. You SE'd from Grunter Games therefore according to our terms regarding responsible gaming you were not permitted to play at Donkey Bollocks Slots and all bets, as per the licence terms must be voided. This means we are sending a refund of e350 back to your depositing method forthwith."

Let me guess.........

 

[CasinoCruiseRep]

HOW MANY EFFING TIMES?????????????????

IF YOU GUYS CANNOT PROVIDE A SIMPLE LIST, AS I'VE SAID UNTIL BLUE IN THE FACE, OF LINKED CASINOS THAT WILL/CAN AFFECT A NEW PLAYER WHETHER FOR BONUS OR SE REASONS THEN ALL THIS BS IS DOWN TO YOU!!

This means 'simple' as in the new player doesn't have to conduct a licence search. Funny how your sites sharing the same licence allow SE'd players to sign up (as to be fair you mentioned) with others under the licence and this miraculously isn't noticed until they withdraw any winnings.

If you ask me this is a no-lose scam and it stinks to high heaven.

1. SE'd from linked site-Player is allowed to sign up and play. Loses and maybe shuts/SE's account. You collect money nothing more said.

2. Same player allowed to sign wins. Suddenly it's observed you have a reason not to pay them.

These two scenarios occur firstly because you don't spot player and stop them at sign-up stage and secondly because (notwithstanding the first)you DO NOT specify the sites linked.

Be honest reps:
How times have your casinos in scenario #1 above, contacted a player with the following e-mail:

"Dear Plonker,

We noticed last week you signed up with us at Donkey Bollocks Slots and deposited and lost e350 and then SE'd your account. It has come to our attention that prior to joining us you had been a member of Grunter Games which share a licence with us. You SE'd from Grunter Games therefore according to our terms regarding responsible gaming you were not permitted to play at Donkey Bollocks Slots and all bets, as per the licence terms must be voided. This means we are sending a refund of e350 back to your depositing method forthwith."

Let me guess.........




On our site if you click on the UKGC license logo in our footer you will arrive here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Search for Casino Cruise and you will find EveryMatrix Software Limited > click on that and you will arrive here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You will see the list of white labels there. However, Thrills and Super Lenny now have their own UK GC license. You can check this on the UKGC site and on Super Lenny footer.

Furthermore, our footer clearly says that we are operating under EM license.

We aren't going to start listing other casinos on our site.

I will fix the UK GC logo link to go straight here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[dunover]

On our site if you click on the UKGC license logo in our footer you will arrive here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Search for Casino Cruise and you will find EveryMatrix Software Limited > click on that and you will arrive here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You will see the list of white labels there. However, Thrills and Super Lenny now have their own UK GC license. You can check this on the UKGC site and on Super Lenny footer.

Furthermore, our footer clearly says that we are operating under EM license.

We aren't going to start listing other casinos on our site.

Therein lies the problem....

So the new player is expected to search, without direction or instruction from your site, for UKGC licence information and deduce whether it will affect his play at your site? This is totally at odds (yes Vinyl!) with consumer protection measures in the UK which unfortunately thus far have no cohesion with the UKGC.

Wouldn't it be simpler to directly tell the player as I suggested, which sites are relevant? Why the secrecy and obfuscation? If the information is in the public domain anyway, as you have tried to demonstrate with your dead links, why not provide it yourselves?

Sorry but I believe, for the reasons in my first post, that it is financially beneficial for you (and the other casinos) NOT to make it obvious.

When will we see ANY accredited casino bite the bullet and actually disclose fully in THEIR OWN pages of terms the associated casinos the new player needs to be aware of?

And I ask again, how many (losing) players has your site contacted and refunded when you discovered they wouldn't have been paid due to EM duplicity terms???

 

[spintee]

I am waiting for someone to come by and tell us they have been paid after SE a few times, Than got the the horror story when won big, Only time than more excuse

 

[CasinoCruiseRep]

So the new player is expected to search, without direction or instruction from your site, for UKGC licence information and deduce whether it will affect his play at your site? This is totally at odds (yes Vinyl!) with consumer protection measures in the UK which unfortunately thus far have no cohesion with the UKGC.

What do suggest other than link the UK GC logo to the page that shows the casinos we share the license with? A SE player should ad least want to check this, no?

And I ask again, how many (losing) players has your site contacted and refunded when you discovered they wouldn't have been paid due to EM terms???

We don't close the player accounts as we have no way of even knowing that the player is already SE at another casino on the same license. I will get some stats for you from EM - good question.

 

[dunover]

What do suggest other than link the UK GC logo to the page that shows the casinos we share the license with? A SE player should ad least want to check this, no?

Why would he want to check? As far as he is concerned you are a fresh site he hasn't played at before therefore has little reason to look UNLESS you point him in the right direction and tell him he should at risk of not getting paid if he wins.....

We don't close the player accounts as we have no way of even knowing that the player is already SE at another casino on the same license. I will get some stats for you from EM - good question.

Well that really is a huge failure on the part of EM then isn't it? If it's so important to EM that a player is not SE'd at another EM site then as part of their software and service to their clients like yourself they should bloody well have the systems in place so you DO know!!

Sounds like a half-assed set-up to me that they are in no hurry to improve as it benefits their clients and shafts the players.

P.S. Your idea of a direct link to the UKGC list for the EM licence while well meant is completely pointless as their system requires a search each time and doesn't store results.

P.P.S. My idea! How about you copy the list from the UKGC and stick it in your T&C's. 2 minutes of html editing. Simple as far as I can see, but the casinos affected obviously pale at this outrageous challenge.

 

[spintee]

What do suggest other than link the UK GC logo to the page that shows the casinos we share the license with? A SE player should ad least want to check this, no?



We don't close the player accounts as we have no way of even knowing that the player is already SE at another casino on the same license. I will get some stats for you from EM - good question.

You may well have no way of knowing but soon find out quick enough when it comes to a withdraw (anysite) Maybe to be fair to players do the same checks as to what you do when they withdraw, But do the checks when deposit?

All well and good putting your licence up there but people that do not no about all the SE and getting bared its pretty much useless

 

[asparkes15]

Why not honour the winnings? Are CasinoCruise really that slimy to hold onto the cash that he rightfully won? Rules cannot be made up as you go along, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that people are aware that if they are signed up to a linked site, that signing up to yours may affect them. Otherwise, it's just using a made up rule to con people out of money. Cutting a corner to ensure maximum profit. And that's no better than a con artist.

 

[interlog]

I too would be interested to know how many depositors that lost money and were self excluded at another casino operating under the same license have been refunded their deposit without having to ask.

As Dunover said, this is a no lose situation for the casino. Take, take, take but when it comes to giving, it suddenly becomes an issue.

It really is simple isn't it. Once a new player signs up, the account gets audited at the end of the day. If it is then established the player is self excluded at another casino, the account is blocked and monies are refunded (if applicable) minus a reasonable administration charge.

Not difficult isn't it.

 

[fun4all]

Funny thing is I bet they do check accounts on sign up where it benefits them. Theres no way they just allow people to make multi accounts or something and carry on playing after sign up. Just my opinion but this thread sure makes it seem like they only check what suits them.

The worst problem gamblers will never withdraw either, so its an ultimate win for the casino if one of them signs up after self exclusion somewhere else under EM licence. CasinoCruise would never stop them playing.

 

[Jory]

I too would be interested to know how many depositors that lost money and were self excluded at another casino operating under the same license have been refunded their deposit without having to ask.

Probably no one.

I was excluded at both Next and Lucky casino when I joined Casino Cruise and I didn't get my deposit refunded even after asking. They said it's because "I lost" and at the time I had deposited back in March, EMs policy was to not refund deposits of players who were self excluded and lost. Basically I deposited $100 and the best possible outcome was having my deposit refunded only if I managed to reach the withdrawal stage.

They seem to be trying to blame the player for not doing their homework before joining a new casino, but in my case I contacted them directly and told them that I was excluded at two of their casinos, but they said it "should not be a problem".

 

[cncas2123]

Probably no one.

I was excluded at both Next and Lucky casino when I joined Casino Cruise and I didn't get my deposit refunded even after asking. They said it's because "I lost" and at the time I had deposited back in March, EMs policy was to not refund deposits of players who were self excluded and lost. Basically I deposited $100 and the best possible outcome was having my deposit refunded only if I managed to reach the withdrawal stage.

They seem to be trying to blame the player for not doing their homework before joining a new casino, but in my case I contacted them directly and told them that I was excluded at two of their casinos, but they said it "should not be a problem".

By not refunding your deposit when you had excluded from an EM site means that they are breaching the licensing rules of the UKGC - how many times has it been posted when someone has won that the reason the winnings cant be paid is because it states in the UKGC terms that an excluded player must be returned to the position he was in prior to depositing??? So Casino Cruise are feeding you a lot of BS, its not an EM policy its the UKGC terms for issuing a license and I would love to see what the rep has to say about this.

 

[fun4all]

By not refunding your deposit when you had excluded from an EM site means that they are breaching the licensing rules of the UKGC

I don't know where "Jory" is from, perhaps they are not from UK in which case they would not fall under the UKGC regulation in casinocruises eyes. They have a maltese licence from everymatrix as well.

I look at some casinos and they usually have dual licences - UKGC and another (say malta for example). Usually I read stuff like "we are licenced by the UKGC for players in the united kingdom". Maybe that sort of thing is at work here and Jory is not from the UK.

 

[Tirilej]

I don't know where "Jory" is from, perhaps they are not from UK in which case they would not fall under the UKGC regulation in casinocruises eyes. They have a maltese licence from everymatrix as well.

I look at some casinos and they usually have dual licences - UKGC and another (say malta for example). Usually I read stuff like "we are licenced by the UKGC for players in the united kingdom". Maybe that sort of thing is at work here and Jory is not from the UK.

He is from the uk.

I remember this well because he was scared of where he could play. There were all these discussions in threads back then, and even though he got the green light from live chat he asked the rep here.
It took him one month to answer. One month, where both I and Jory reminded him. The final reply was that no, he wasn't allowed to play and his money would not be refunded. It has bothered me since then because he really wanted to do the right thing. Not all players are like that.