It's seems rather simple to me. If you like the Crypto software, go to Intercasino. If you like the Playtech software, go to a non-WH licensee of theirs. Additionally, all the aff managers should try to direct their clientele the same way. Regular players should simply try to talk their friends into doing the same.
I hate to ruin the potential for a long, drawn-out debate
, but
sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.
I suspect that many players DO move on after suffering poor service, BUT often the sticking point is that the outfit offering the poor service still has hold of your money!!
As for the Graham Calvert case, that must have been a public relations disaster for William Hill. I recall a thread on this, and Graham was suing for damages of approximately the same amount of his later losses as the self exclusion process had failed, and they should have refused those big bets.
There are still things waiting to bite William Hill in the a$$, namely the fact they are a UK household name, yet their terms clearly INSULT British players, and further make it almost impossible for a "normal" player to stand a fair chance of winning as is offered to most of the rest of the world because they have little or no chance of meeting the WR through "non advantage" play. It would be like William Hill offering worse horseracing odds to, say, punters in London, and then quoting some generalised verbiage about London punters being "more dishonest" than those elsewhere, which somehow makes them better at predicting which horse will win. These WAS fraud in horseracing though, but it was not ordinary punters that were involved, it was trainers, owners, and jockeys. There was no thought of offering poorer odds to certain towns and cities though, they set about identifying those punters using such inside information, and specifically banned them.
Now, with a wealth of data on all of us in electronic form, it should be easy for online casinos to tell the "advantage players" from the masses, and they should control the problem through other terms, such as banning the specific advantage play methods used, ordinary players will not be affected since they would never use such methods in the first place. Fraud too, should be easy to flag, and they could do a much better job than at present, and this while STILL retaining that instant gratification of the player being able to sign up and deposit in the same day (or even hour).
The simplest solution would be to check the name and address with available data sources for basics, such as "does this address exist", "is the registrant registered to vote at said address" (if 18, this would be a legal requirement). Internally, they can check the new details with those of all players they have had in the past, and look for duplicate accounts for the registered address, or email address. They can also do a check on the inbound IP address, to see if it is likely the player is playing from the town they say they are. All this can be handled in SECONDS by software, and the player can then be sent a link to his registered email address, which he has to receive, and click on, in order to validate the account. If anything odd is spotted, the account is referred BEFORE any money changes hands.; If William Hill wrongly flag a player, at least the player can just move on if they encounter poor service, rather than have to fight to get their money.