The issue you refer to over at Gambling Grumbles was reported in a misleading manner. The player in question told us he was a student and even supplied his student ID as his proof of ID when verifying his account.
Our approach to responsible gaming covers a wide range of areas, of which this is just one. We are not naïve enough to think that after excluding students we need not take any further action.
When we determined that this player was a student we didn’t close his account, void the winnings and close the case. We continued communication and enquired as to how he was funding his gambling.
Pina – I am not sure what you feel is not holding water. Do you doubt that I have strong evidence to say this player is still a dependant in full time education, or do you doubt that excluding such people from playing is the right thing to do?
Regards
Tom
You should have asked this BEFORE he deposited $5000. There are reports on THIS forum from players asking why CW are asking them for documents BEFORE their first withdrawal, and even after their first DEPOSIT. YET this student had none of this, he was able to get through $5000 of deposits without ANY questions being asked. Only when he WON were the questions asked, and by this time it was TOO LATE. You have ended up CONFISCATING some $7000 from someone who "cannot afford the money to play". CW took his bets, they were happy when THEY were up $5000, and asked no questions as to how this young player got hold of the $5000.
I don't see why it is "impossible" to ask every 18-21 year old for "up front verification" when at the same time there are reports on this forum that some OLDER players are being REQUIRED to provide this very same "up front verification" before they can play.
If the player was NOT a student at the time he joined & played, it does not matter what he put in the registration form. You have a list of options, and you have to "pick the nearest" if your particular situation is not mentioned. he picked "student", so WHY did this not IMMEDIATELY cause his account to be referred for verification straight away based on the parameters provided of age and occupation. To say this is "impossible to implement" is complete BS!
Providing a "student ID" card only proves he WAS a student, not that he IS NOW a student. He was from the UK, and the casino asks for "photo ID". His student ID could have been the ONLY form of "photo ID" that he had at the time, and he saw no problems in using it because the alternative would have been to say he did not have "photo ID", but only the standard forms issued by the UK government of birth certificate, national insurance number, etc. NONE of these have the holder's photo on. "student ID" back in my days at university was issued by the student's union, not the university. It was not "student ID" so much as proof that I had PAID my union dues, and was thus entitled to use the facilities provided by the student's union both on, and off, campus.
Unless CW have evidence that the player whose case has been discussed had NOT graduated, but was STILL a "student in full time education" when he registered the account, there is NO reason covered by the terms for voiding payment. It can't be that hard to PROVE whether he has graduated or not. Graduates are issued with various certificates and other papers. Failure to furnish these would be reason to believe someone had not yet graduated.
Voiding winnings when a player has graduated earlier in the year is NOT covered by the terms, as graduation means that you are no longer "in full time education", BUT there is a period of time where you are "in limbo" waiting for the bureaucrats to shuffle the papers to move you from the status of "student" to that of "graduate looking for work".
Pseudo-code would be:-
IF (age<21 .AND. occupation="student") THEN
<lock registration process for account referral>
ELSE
<complete registration>
"referral" would then require the player to prove "means to gamble responsibly" in order for registration to be completed and the account activated.
Similar checks could be run with other input fields from the registration form in order to ensure that those who appear unable to support themselves comfortably cannot simply start gambling away large sums of money.
Of course, CW would lose a few customers this way, but these would be customers they SHOULD be losing.
Another move that would help keep gambling "responsible" would be to ban the use of CREDIT cards at the casino, in other words, gambling with FUTURE income, or even with money that could take YEARS to pay back to the card issuer. Deposit methods could be restricted to those where the player has to personally own the funds BEFORE they are spent at the casino, not be liable to pay them back to a bank AFTER they have been lost.
It will not stop players borrowing to play, but it will make it HARDER.
When I graduated, I was "in limbo" for a while before I "went on the dole" as it was in 1982. It took until August 1984 for me to move to "full time employment". Students today STILL face the same problems.
Technically, I was not able to "gamble responsibly" until August 1984, but would have been able to gamble at CW (had the internet existed in 1982) from the Summer of 1982. If I was asked for "photo ID", all I had was my "student union card", which I extended by buying an "associate membership". Fortunately, requests for "photo ID" were pretty rare in 1982, pretty convenient, since students were one of the few groups actually ABLE to show a "photo ID" in the 1980's.
....thats the dumbest rule ever considering that I gambled at the bars on the slots and used my winnings to pay for what my job didnt.
hone call to verify person, also you have to verify a small withdrawal from said cc/bank account to verify account is in person's name.
