Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[Glunn11]

Hey Glunn11 Thanks for that place I will show my son that one.
He goes to Uconn now in his 3rd year.
It has good info on it.
Good Luck to you.
~T~

Glad I could point you in its direction -- it definitely helps answer questions about all aspects of college.

And thanks for the good luck wishes.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yep, same old.
As long as you lose, you're welcome.

As soon as you win, we'll do everything to 'protect' you.

As far as I know, CWC does phoneverification as soon as you make your your first deposit at one of their casinos.
Would it really be so much trouble to include the question if the new player is a student or not?Especially if the new player appears to be rather young?

Would it really be so much trouble for the CS agent doing the phone verification to hone their literary skills

He PUT "student" down for his occupation when registering. This situation should have been "error trapped" IMMEDIATELY. They didn't need to ask this additional question, they ALREADY KNEW.

Since it is normal for the first deposit to trigger phone verification, I expect this also happened when this student made his first deposit. Clearly, he PASSED that stage, and as far as he was concerned was now "good to go". He certainly WAS "good to go" for the next $5000. Problems ONLY arose when he withdrew, and someone actually bothered to READ the information supplied during registration, and thus realised he was a student, so referred the matter to management for more detailed verification. Whilst Tom says this was NOT simply a matter of summarily voiding all the play, it does NOT explain, nor excuse, why NO-ONE acted upon his declaration of occupation as "student" when he first registered.

This must STILL be happening, with both students and those in this "grey area" of having recently graduated, whilst at the same time still effectively being a "student" as far as this rule is concerned. These cases are ONLY coming to light at the first withdrawal, or an enhanced verification check (as clearly, the normal procedures that take place after the first deposit are NOT catching these cases). Those students who LOSE probably NEVER find out they can have their bets voided and deposits returned.

This clearly works BOTH ways, as Tom says CW cannot accept bets from students, therefore any bets accepted by mistake, win or LOSE.

As well as confiscating winnings from students through voiding all wagers, students who have LOST are equally bound by the same rules, and the SAME sanctions need to be applied, the voiding of all bets. Students' LOSING deposits need to be returned, and their accounts locked, since losing students are an even MORE vulnerable group than students who have been lucky enough to WIN their way out of potential disaster.

The term itself is fair, but the way the system is IMPLEMENTING this rule most certainly is NOT. CW fall far short of doing "all they reasonably can" to prevent the vulnerable from gambling irresponsibly. I don't see it as "unreasonable" for them to check the registration information of EVERY player to ensure that they have not declared "student" as their occupation. This does not even have to be done manually, it can form part of the "security procedures" that verify accounts, and work out these so called "red flags" that cause additional checks to be done.

From what I have read, a good deal of VERY COMPLEX work is undertaken in order to cross check registration details with various internal and external databases, yet the very SIMPLE check of whether "occupation=student" from the registration form is NOT part of this process, and slips right through the net until such students generate their first withdrawal, even if this takes thousands of dollars in deposits.

 

[clubworld]

I think you have your wires crossed, we dont ask for occupation on our signup form nor store this in our database.

Regards
Tom

 

[rockycatt]

it'S going to be quite a relief when glunn 11 gets paid :notworthy

 

[all4greed]

Club World Rep -

What steps do you take to prevent or discourage compulsive gambling? Are accounts actively monitored to look for multiple deposits in a short time? What about repeated losses that stagger up into the thousands?

The student thing is reaching out there a bit. There are plenty of people that go bankrupt every day because of gambling and obviously they can't afford it.

 

[Steve Russo]

For those of you who don't know me, I am the manager of Gambling Grumbles and the person who wrote the report about the player at Aladdin's Gold who was refused his $7000 in winnings on the grounds that he was a student.

I was alerted to this thread by Pinababy69.

When writing the GG reports, I do my best to restrict myself to facts. In this thread, I am going to state both facts and suppositions, but will clearly label each.

Fact: Clubworld has said that the report was posted in a misleading way. His exact words were:

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.

Fact: The report made very clear that he said he was a student and provided his ID. Here is the third paragraph of the report:

He used a student ID card to help prove his identity and when he was asked in Live Chat what his profession is, he replied "Student".

Supposition: Clubworld, being a gentleman, will apologize for making the false allegation that the report was misleading.

Fact: Aladdin Gold's T&Cs prohibit full time students from playing there.

Fact: Aladdin Gold's T&Cs do not prohibit someone from saying he is a full time student if, in fact, he is not.

Fact: The player, Dan L, told us ""I was asked what my occupation was" Dan said. "Since I recently graduated from university, have been a student all my life, and not found a job yet, I said I was a student, and sent my student ID in. They then said that students were not allowed to play at the casino, refunded my deposits, and closed my account.

"I was not a student at any time when I registered, deposited or played at the casino. The student ID I sent it clearly shows it has expired, and even when I said on live chat that I was a student, I think I mentioned that I had already recently graduated (although I'm not 100% sure I did say that). In any case, I went back on live chat to clarify the situation. I explained to them that I was not actually a student at any time when I played there, so I had not breached their terms. They insisted that because in the past I had said I was a student, whatever else I say is basically not relevant."

Fact: Dan L told us he proved he was no longer a student when he played.

"In order to prove that I was not a student when I played there, I sent my university degree certificate (which is dated a month before I signed up at Aladdin's Gold), another certificate for an award I won, and transcripts of my degree results (all also dated a month before I signed up)."

Fact: Tom, the casino's representative, did not dispute any of the above. In fact, he confirmed it: "The events on this account unfold as the player describes."

Supposition: If a player lost $7000 at Aladdin's Gold and then claimed that he was a full-time student when he played and asked for his money back, the casino would not rush to give it to him.

Supposition: If the only proof the player could provide of his student status was a student ID card which had expired before he played there, Aladdin's Gold would have laughed itself silly at his claim.

Supposition: If the casino later discovered his degree certificate, and other documents, proving that he had graduated before playing at the casino it would be screaming "Fraud!"

Supposition: Why did Dan L say that he was a student? He was asked to prove his identity, which his student ID card did, even if it had expired. After all, only his status as a student had ended -- not his name. He had been a student for some 16 years, had recently graduated, and had not yet found his first job. It is not unnatural for someone in his position, when asked, to describe himself as a student.

Fact: Having said he was a student, the burden of proof then fell upon Dan L to show that he was not. He did so.

Fact: Aladdin's Gold chose to ignore that proof.

Fact: Seeking to protect students from losses which they can not afford is an admirable aim.

Fact: Accepting bets from students does not protect them.

Fact: Keeping losses from students does not protect them.

Fact: Refusing to pay students their winnings does not protect them.

Supposition: Keeping Dan L's $7000 in winnings not only did nothing to protect either him or actual students, but it allowed Aladdin's Gold to laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[danl]

Hello,

I am the player affected by the issue which has been so effectively summarised by Steve. I cannot really add anything further to his post, but I have submitted a PAB for Casinomeister's consideration.

I hope that there can be an equitable resolution.

Many thanks to Pinababy69 and vinylweatherman (amongst others) for their comments.


Regards,
Dan

 

[Nate]

Supposition: If a player lost $7000 at Aladdin's Gold and then claimed that he was a full-time student when he played and asked for his money back, the casino would not rush to give it to him.

Supposition: If the only proof the player could provide of his student status was a student ID card which had expired before he played there, Aladdin's Gold would have laughed itself silly at his claim.

Supposition: If the casino later discovered his degree certificate, and other documents, proving that he had graduated before playing at the casino it would be screaming "Fraud!"

Hi Steve,

Excellent Argument. If the 'Facts' are as is, then there should be NO reason for Alladins Gold to withold winnings. I am interested to see the outcome of the PAB or a response from Tom @ Clubworld.

I would also seek evidence that Alladins Gold / Clubworld Casinos have previously refunded 'Students' as proof that it is not only a ONE WAY street for the Casino I.e. A Win / Win situation.

Nate

 

[ksech]

First, I'd like to thank clubworld Tom for taking the time to be put through the inquisition. I know more than 1 or 2 casino reps have been lambasted into hiding here.

I'd like to know what the difference is between an 18 year old full time student, an 18 year old part-time student, and 18 year old non student. There are many 18 year old full time students who work nowadays. Perhaps, casinos should change their age limits to 21 rather than 18, to avoid this kind of grief(?).

Second, is the casino ONLY concerned with an 18 year full time student vs. a person who is of low income, unemployed or living hand-to-mouth day-to-day on disability? How do you discern who can be denied winnings?

Thirdly, IF you do have a student who wins, why not pay the winnings and then close the account? After all, you allowed them to deposit at least once, in all reality it was probably numerous times. Is this "protecting" them by not paying them? It seems like a win/win situation for the casino, a person wins, but you don't pay because of a T&C you claim to be protecting the interests of the person in question.

Lastly, does your financial department weed out the players who make multiple deposits in a day, possibly clasifying them as players with a gambling problem? Or do they allow them to continue with, perhaps, a destructive financial course?

This is not just your group of casinos, it pertains to ALL online casinos. I, personally think, T&Cs should fall under closer scrutiny by ALL players to make sure there isn't any hinky loopholes for the casinos to use. More and more you read about players being shafted when requesting a payout due to some type of loophole which only benefits the casino.

Final question(s)...
How often does the casino review the T&Cs and makes changes to keep current? Or is it casino policy to strictly adhere to T&Cs which can be argued "safe and fair" for the casino only?

 

[colly]

It is unrealistic for us to contact every player who registers an account with us to ask if they are a student before we permit them to deposit and it is perfectly normal for 18 year olds to leave school and get a job.

It is irresponsible for us to encourage people to gamble when they are still dependant on their parents and attending school full time.
Regards
Tom

I agree here on the policy- if indeed a student then I think he should be discouraged- gambling only pays off for a few, the majority lose (hopefully what they can afford) and for some it ruins lives. For a student a loss even a small one could be food or rent.

I do think the other posters have a valid point though- your point about unrealistic to contact is taken but if you really feel that strongly about responsible gambling than perhaps it should be a mandatory policy for the casino to advise a proof requirement" for all persons of an age likely to be dependant fulltime students (18 to 21) before they deposit- surely your player base would not have that many in that age group and it is known from day one.

I think your intentions are good, but you need to apply it and make an assessment before they deposit and play not when they try to cashout- or the responsible gambling fails at the point where its needed- when they risk their money.

Cheers
Colly

 

[Pinababy69]

Hi Steve, thanks for posting that synopsis. When Tom mentioned yesterday that the case had been misrepresented, I wasn't sure if he meant I had misunderstood what I read and perhaps posted something incorrect....or that it had been summarized incorrectly at GG. So rather than a third party (myself) trying to hash it out, I felt the best course of action was to ask you to post directly, insofar as your own knowledge of the facts and the case.

You certainly make a compelling argument, and as Nate posted....if everything you posted as FACT is indeed true, then I see no reason for winnings to be denied, based on the student rule.

Welcome to the forum DanL, and glad to see you read the PAB rules before posting up a storm, lol.

I absolutely trust Bryan and I trust Max, and am looking forward to the final decision results, once your PAB is processed and finalized.

I also believe that Tom and the CW group are good operators, which is probably why this case bugged me so much. Had it been one of the rogue RTG operations, I probably wouldn't have given it much thought beyond a few posts on the thread. But I expect a higher standard from the good guys. While I commend ClubWorld for trying to do the right thing when it comes to responsible gambling, I do believe they dropped the ball on this one. As mentioned numerous times...it's not the rule itself..it's the way it's being applied.

Keeping my fingers crossed that there is a fair and equitable resolution for all parties involved. Steve and GG were instrumental in helping Embalu (the Rushmore player) get paid after two years. Here's hoping that this time it's CM who can get the casino to take a second look at things.

I will personally refrain from posting anything more, until we see the outcome of the PAB. But I do look forward to further debate on the issue "in general" once all is complete.

First, I'd like to thank clubworld Tom for taking the time to be put through the inquisition. I know more than 1 or 2 casino reps have been lambasted into hiding here.

I'd like to know what the difference is between an 18 year old full time student, an 18 year old part-time student, and 18 year old non student. There are many 18 year old full time students who work nowadays. Perhaps, casinos should change their age limits to 21 rather than 18, to avoid this kind of grief(?).

Second, is the casino ONLY concerned with an 18 year full time student vs. a person who is of low income, unemployed or living hand-to-mouth day-to-day on disability? How do you discern who can be denied winnings?

Thirdly, IF you do have a student who wins, why not pay the winnings and then close the account? After all, you allowed them to deposit at least once, in all reality it was probably numerous times. Is this "protecting" them by not paying them? It seems like a win/win situation for the casino, a person wins, but you don't pay because of a T&C you claim to be protecting the interests of the person in question.

Lastly, does your financial department weed out the players who make multiple deposits in a day, possibly clasifying them as players with a gambling problem? Or do they allow them to continue with, perhaps, a destructive financial course?

This is not just your group of casinos, it pertains to ALL online casinos. I, personally think, T&Cs should fall under closer scrutiny by ALL players to make sure there isn't any hinky loopholes for the casinos to use. More and more you read about players being shafted when requesting a payout due to some type of loophole which only benefits the casino.

Final question(s)...
How often does the casino review the T&Cs and makes changes to keep current? Or is it casino policy to strictly adhere to T&Cs which can be argued "safe and fair" for the casino only?

Excellent post and points Ksech!! We could post endless hypothetical scenarios in which JUST being a student isn't really reason enough to void winnings. As Bryan said, there is a big difference between an 18 yr old full time student living at home with mom and dad, and relying on them for support....and a 35 yr old student who perhaps also works, or is financially stable, but has decided to go back to school full time. It's not so much the rule itself I have a problem with, but the application of that rule. How do you apply it fairly?

I agree here on the policy- if indeed a student then I think he should be discouraged- gambling only pays off for a few, the majority lose (hopefully what they can afford) and for some it ruins lives. For a student a loss even a small one could be food or rent.

I do think the other posters have a valid point though- your point about unrealistic to contact is taken but if you really feel that strongly about responsible gambling than perhaps it should be a mandatory policy for the casino to advise a proof requirement" for all persons of an age likely to be dependant fulltime students (18 to 21) before they deposit- surely your player base would not have that many in that age group and it is known from day one.

I think your intentions are good but you need to apply it and make an assessment before they deposit and play not when they try to cashout or the responsible gambling fails at the point where its needed- when they risk there money.

Cheers
Colly

All excellent points as well Colly. I think the key phrase in your post is "dependent full time students". That's really the crux of the issue, when trying to apply the term in a fair manner. And the last paragraph really sums it all up.

 

[clubworld]

DanL told us he was a student and supplied his student ID as proof. When he found out that students are not permitted to play he changed his mind and said that he wasn’t a student. We asked him to supply something that would demonstrate this and he was unable to.

Students are not permitted to play. It clearly states this in the first item in the player representations in the terms and conditions he agreed to when he created his account.

Ksech:
The age at which people are allowed to gamble varies from country to country and we cannot take the responsibility for determining this. Instead we require that the minimum age is 18 (which is the legal age here in the UK) and require the player to ensure they have reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction.

We only deny winnings in cases where there is a clear breach of our terms of use. Our responsible gaming policy may lead to items being included in our terms of use but would never in itself lead to winnings being denied.

We make no stipulations in our terms for account holders on low income or disability benefits.

We are concerned about anyone who is gambling beyond their means and in the rare cases where this does happen it tends to be with people who have relatively good incomes. We cannot audit our player’s personal finances and so we look for other signs that there could be a problem.

Amongst others these things include rapidly increasing deposit sizes in the same sessions, spending an obsessively long time online, becoming abusive with customer services etc.

In these cases we take an individual approach. It is a delicate subject but we have to ensure that the player is aware of the options that are available to them in terms of reducing their betting and depositing limits, a cooling off period or total self-exclusion.

Kind Regards
Tom

EDIT: We don’t just review accounts at the point of withdrawal - these are just the cases that get the exposure as there are winnings involved. Cases where we have refunded player deposits on accounts with a zero balance get far less attention.

 

[Pinababy69]

Fact: Dan L told us he proved he was no longer a student when he played.

"In order to prove that I was not a student when I played there, I sent my university degree certificate (which is dated a month before I signed up at Aladdin's Gold), another certificate for an award I won, and transcripts of my degree results (all also dated a month before I signed up)."

DanL told us he was a student and supplied his student ID as proof. When he found out that students are not permitted to play he changed his mind and said that he wasn’t a student. We asked him to supply something that would demonstrate this and he was unable to.

And this is exactly why trusted third parties are sometimes the only way to go. This is obviously the sticking point of the issue.

Again, looking forward to the result.

 

[colly]

Oh, I didn't "just" turn 18 -- I turned 18 in May.

OK I am seeing a major discrepancy between the comment I've quoted and the proof supplied per the post above - and its bothering me!

If the player only turned 18 in May how do you have completed University transcripts.

Perhaps the system is different from AUstralia but as a general rule here you cant even start a degree at university till you are 18 and you would complete any undergraduate degree till you were 20 or 21.

(My apologies if Dan is one of those genius exceptions that are allowed special early entrance)

Cheers'Colly

 

[Steve Russo]

(My apologies if Dan is one of those genius exceptions that are allowed special early entrance)

Cheers'Colly

Colly, you are getting two different posters confused. Dan is not the one who just turned 18.

 

[Pinababy69]

Maybe I should see if Bryan, Max or Simmo can split the thread and put Dan's issue into a separate thread? It could be confusing.

The OP is Glunn11, who turned 18 in May. Waiting to see if CW is going to accept his "proof of employment" and his claim that he is not a student.

DanL is a previous player at CW (Aladdin's Gold) who had a case mediated by Steve at Gambling Grumbles, and subsequently had 7K Euro of winnings denied. He says he wasn't a student at the time he signed up and played, and claims he has provided proof of that (ie. his university degree). CW/Tom says that he didn't provide sufficient proof. DanL has PAB already.

 

[colly]

Colly, you are getting two different posters confused. Dan is not the one who just turned 18.

True- I meant Glunn - Its 3.30am here and insomniac lapses are started to happen.

The question re the discrepancy still stand though (edit OK Isee the uni student is Dan and the OP is Glen- perhaps its time to go to bed!)

Cheers
Colly zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Pinababy69]

True- I meant Glunn - Its 3.30am here and insomniac lapses are started to happen.

The question re the discrepancy still stand though

Cheers
Colly zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Glunn isn't the one claiming to have university transcripts or a degree Colly, that's DanL. Glunn11 has said that he forwarded an invoice proving some employment to CW.

 

[danl]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your post and I hope that it is OK to respond to you on this thread. I do not want to interfere with the PAB process, but since you have posted about my particular issue on the forum I would like to respond, though I'll only comment on the quoted statement.

We asked him to supply something that would demonstrate this and he was unable to.

This isn't the case, as I provided a dated degree certificate, results transcript and an award that I received for being the best graduating student on my course, which demonstrate that I had already graduated (and therefore no longer a student) at the time when I registered, deposited and played at Aladdin's Gold Casino. My provision of documentation was confirmed in my action filed with Gambling Grumbles.


Kind regards,
Dan

 

[vinylweatherman]

DanL told us he was a student and supplied his student ID as proof. When he found out that students are not permitted to play he changed his mind and said that he wasn’t a student. We asked him to supply something that would demonstrate this and he was unable to.

Students are not permitted to play. It clearly states this in the first item in the player representations in the terms and conditions he agreed to when he created his account.

Ksech:
The age at which people are allowed to gamble varies from country to country and we cannot take the responsibility for determining this. Instead we require that the minimum age is 18 (which is the legal age here in the UK) and require the player to ensure they have reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction.

We only deny winnings in cases where there is a clear breach of our terms of use. Our responsible gaming policy may lead to items being included in our terms of use but would never in itself lead to winnings being denied.

We make no stipulations in our terms for account holders on low income or disability benefits.

We are concerned about anyone who is gambling beyond their means and in the rare cases where this does happen it tends to be with people who have relatively good incomes. We cannot audit our player’s personal finances and so we look for other signs that there could be a problem.

Amongst others these things include rapidly increasing deposit sizes in the same sessions, spending an obsessively long time online, becoming abusive with customer services etc.

In these cases we take an individual approach. It is a delicate subject but we have to ensure that the player is aware of the options that are available to them in terms of reducing their betting and depositing limits, a cooling off period or total self-exclusion.

Kind Regards
Tom

EDIT: We don’t just review accounts at the point of withdrawal - these are just the cases that get the exposure as there are winnings involved. Cases where we have refunded player deposits on accounts with a zero balance get far less attention.

So, CW do NOT believe he has graduated after all, but has just said this after finding out he can't be paid if he was still studying at the time.

The player said he DID provide extensive proof that he had graduated prior to playing, and thus did NOT breach the term.

He WAS asked his occupation, but by an agent after providing his student ID (expired) to prove his identity. Well, WHAT THE HELL ELSE is a young UK player expected to do. The request for "photo ID" was a trap, he ONLY had a student ID, so this was the ONLY thing he was able to offer, and did so. This lead to the agent asking what his occupation was. Well, he DIDN'T HAVE ONE, so he simply said "student", most likely this was "force of habit" rather than a well thought out answer. A single word answer is quick and simple, to fully explain his situation would have taken a paragraph, not something you do when "texting" in a chat session.

If the registration form does not ask for occupation, an opportunity is lost to PROTECT students at the point of registration. Why not have a "tick box" at the end to make this particular term more explicit, rather than being bundled in with "I accept the terms and conditions".

It could be, "tick here to confirm that you are NOT a student currently studying full time at a university or college. No tick - no play. If a student DOES tick this box, they have made an EXPLICIT false declaration, impossible for them to later claim they "didn't see that".

If this player KNEW he would not get paid because he was a student, surely the LAST thing he would do would be to submit a student ID card, and answer the question about what he did with the unqualified reply of "student".

CW have at least clarified their position. he was not paid because he was not able to PROVE that he was no longer a student when he registered. It could also be the case that CW were WRONG to reject perfectly valid proof of graduation. A third party (Max?) would need to see these proofs, and be told why CW rejected them.

This is an important GENERAL point, since other young players are going to be "accused of being a student" and face the burden of proving they are no longer students. Proving a negative is not easy.

The reluctance of CW to increase the minimum age to 21 is NOT shared among others in the industry. There are many other casinos that set 21, rather than 18, as the minimum age, and this is regardless of any local laws that allow gambling from the age of 18. Such casinos offer BETTER protection to 18 to 21 year old students than CW do, since they cannot even REGISTER, let alone "slip through the net" if they don't set off any other "responsible gambling" flags during their play.

This player deposited $5000, so clearly had the "means" whether or not he was a student at the time. His manner of play also meant that CW's systems did NOT flag his $5000 worth of deposits as a sign of an "irresponsible gambling" risk.
What happened when he was first contacted, which we know is POLICY at CW to phone players to "verify their accounts" after the first couple of deposits, let alone $5000 worth. He must have slipped through the net again at this point.

We make no stipulations in our terms for account holders on low income or disability benefits.

So, such player do NOT need the degree of protection granted to students, but are dealt with through other means, including..

In these cases we take an individual approach. It is a delicate subject but we have to ensure that the player is aware of the options that are available to them in terms of reducing their betting and depositing limits, a cooling off period or total self-exclusion.

....but if you are a student, the ONLY "option" is to have your winnings confiscated, even though OTHER "clear breaches of the terms and conditions" can be dealt with in a way that does NOT result in any winnings being confiscated.

Even "bonus abuse" is dealt with by the player getting paid, and THEN being told that FUTURE activity will be without bonuses.

Students who slip through the net needn't have their winnings confiscated, but their accounts put "on ice" with balances intact until they can prove that they have graduated. This would do far more to protect such players:-

1) Keeping the balance "on ice" prevents a student from gambling it elsewhere, but does NOT propel him FURTHER into a possible financial mess caused by the initial deposits having come from borrowing rather than "means".

2) CW keep up it's reputation for "never voiding winnings after having accepted the bets".

3) Students eventually get "means", and can then gamble responsibly.

4) After a period "on ice", they get their money back, and HOPEFULLY will use it to pay off their debts, which they will come to appreciate once they have started work, and realise that all this "free money" they got as a student was not so "free" after all.


My belief that the REASON this particular term was added was NOT about "protecting students", but was driven by the need to "protect the casino FROM students". Other groups are equally vulnerable to irresponsible gambling, but unlike students, they do NOT pose a threat, as a group, to the casino - hence no "policy" regarding their registration & play.

When called to account, the term can be explained by trotting the line "we care about students' financial vulnerability, so don't want to encourage them to gamble".

One only has to look at casinos that DO allow students to play. They squeal like "stuck pigs" because "student syndicates" are taking them to the cleaners. That doesn't sound like it is the STUDENTS that need protection. These other casinos try to have a "one account per college" policy built into the terms about "shared environments", rather than going for an outright ban on students.

 

[colly]

deleted

 

[Glunn11]

This issue has been resolved between Club World USA and me. Thank you, Tom.

 

[anniemac]

Glad this has been resolved, hopefully to the delight of all involved.

 

[Pinababy69]

This issue has been resolved between Club World USA and me. Thank you, Tom.

Excellent news Glunn!!!

Glad this has been resolved, hopefully to the delight of all involved.

Ditto here Annie. Now just one more to go.

 

[Steve Russo]

DanL told us he was a student and supplied his student ID as proof. When he found out that students are not permitted to play he changed his mind and said that he wasn’t a student. We asked him to supply something that would demonstrate this and he was unable to.

Dan L informed Gambling Grumbles that he provided the documentation, When GG told this to the casino, it did not deny it. In fact, it confirmed everything that Dan L. said. Still, because he had originally said he was a student it refused to pay him.

Tom, tell me honestly -- if tomorrow, Player X who lost $7000 at Aladdin's Gold, were to ask for it back, saying that he is a student, but the only "proof" he could provide is a student ID that expired before he played, would Aladdin's give him his money?

If that ID would not be sufficient to determine that Player X is still a student, why is it sufficient in Dan L's case?

If you were to come across documents showing that Player X had, in fact, graduated before playing, would you still give him the $7000? Or would you cite those documents as proof that he was not a student when he played?

Again, if those documents would be considered proof that Player X had not been a student when he played, why would they not be seen in the same way in Dan L's case?