Dodgy self exclusion practices by Everymatrix and IP&S Casinos

[jim509]

(The casino reps are not available on casinomeister).

After sustaining some quite big losses on online gambling recently I have cut up my credit cards and making sure I am self excluded from all my casino accounts. The losses are my fault but I am amazed and the conduct of some casino groups who claim to have player protection as a cornerstone principal.

Everymatrix..... I opened an account with PlayFrank and lost a few hundred £. on 05/10/16 I emailed PlayFrank casino support to self exclude citing a gambling problem as the reason. I recived no reply, I emailed support again on the 10/10/16 and 01/11/16 but got no reply. I opened an account with Casino Luck in early Nov and lost £800. I emailed casino Luck to self exclude and was told I had to email their licencer Everymatrix to do complete the exclusion.

After informing Everymatrix they emailed me confirmation that I had now self excluded from Casino Luck and they had detected an account with PlayFrank which was now also excluded.

I asked Everymatrix why had I been alowed to open an account with Casino Luck given I had requested self exclusion 3 times to PlayFrank, its sister casino. Everymatrix confirmed that PlayFrank had received my self exclusion request but the self exclusion was not actioned.... Instead PlayFrank had emailed me informing me to contact Everymatrix to complete the exclusion. The problem is I never received the email, I assume that it went to junk mail.

1) Playfrank must have realised I had not recived the email as I emailed not once but 3 times requesting self exclusion, the second and third emails I sent ask why they had not replied. They had my phone number and home address they could have made more effort to contact me to inform me of the need to contact Everymatrix to self exclude.

2) Why could PlayFrank had not self excluded me the moment I emailed them requesting the exclusion. Also why did they not inform their licencer Everymatrix of the self exclusion request?


IP&S..... I requested self exclusion on 21.co.uk the account was closed and I was told I was excluded on the IP&S network.
On 24/11/16 I opened an account with SlotBoss* not realising it was a IP&S casino and lost £700. I went onto chat to request self exclusion.* The casino rep told me the account was now self excluded and I would not be permitted to open any accounts on the IP&S network.

I asked why the Slotboss account had been permitted to be opened given I had self excluded with IP&S. The rep told me I had used a different name to register the account.* This is something I would never knowingly*do, for a start if I had won how could I have passed any verification? It turns out that I made a one letter typing error on my surname, my surname ends in 'K' but i mistakenly typed 'L' as I was using a smartphone.* All other info used was exactly the same as used on the self excluded account, same email address, same phone number, same dob and same home address.

On verification the casino would never have paid out, but they are only too happy to receive the deposits.

How can a casino claim to take player protection seriously when they allow a self excluded player to open another account using the same email address.

Reputable casinos would automatically self excluded a player on request and pass on the info to their license holder.* A reputable casino would also block the email address from being used by a self excluded player to open accounts from sister sites, not to mention card details and ip addresses.

I do not see how Everymatrix and IP&S can hold UK gambling licenses given their practices.

I wonder how many millions are received each year from problem gamblers to Casinos who do not fulfill the responsabilities set by Licencing bodies.

Rant over. Thanks for reading. J

 

[The Blue Anchor]

EM are very shady operators as we all know in respect of SE. They simply don't care.

I'm not sure IP&S are the same. If you gave an incorrect surname, then that could well have impacted on the ability for them to detect your SE with other members of the group.

 

[jim509]

Thanks for the reply blue anchor.

Yes, I can see how the miss spelt name could cause problems for IP&S. However given all other registration info was the same including email address I do feel their monitoring of additional account being opened can be greatly improved at no cost to themselves. The UK Gambling Authority states that name, dob and email address should be used to detect additional accounts.

Also, I find it galling that they would never have processed a withdrawal due to failed verification but are happy to keep any deposits.

 

[Tirilej]

Thanks for the reply blue anchor.

Yes, I can see how the miss spelt name could cause problems for IP&S. However given all other registration info was the same including email address I do feel their monitoring of additional account being opened can be greatly improved at no cost to themselves. The UK Gambling Authority states that name, dob and email address should be used to detect additional accounts.

Also, I find it galling that they would never have processed a withdrawal due to failed verification but are happy to keep any deposits.

Well lucky you who didn't win then because it's a lot more difficult to stop playing if you win.
I really hope you're not going to open more accounts now because that was my first thought when I read your post.

You could also ask Bryan to put you in the Quit gambling forum so you won't be tempted more.
Good luck!

 

[jim509]

True Tirile. But it would have been much better if the email address had been blacklisted when I first requested self exclusion then no money would have been deposited and lost in the first place.

Thanks

 

[Tirilej]

True Tirile. But it would have been much better if the email address had been blacklisted when I first requested self exclusion then no money would have been deposited and lost in the first place.

Thanks

Almost true but I suspect that another casino then had been choosen by you. That willpower of a gambler to gamble is incredibly strong and a tough monster to fight.
I hope you will succeed though. Stay strong and no new cards

 

[dunover]

The EMSEB issue rumbles on and on.....how long are they going to get away with it?

And the OP exemplifies the reason why casinos MUST have automated SE/TAB as there will be no chance of them taking the piss citing "We didn't receive the e-mail" or some other crap.

 

[jim509]

Hi dunover.

Do you think there is any point my complaining to the UK Gambling Comission regarding Everymatrix and their methods regarding Self Exclusion?

 

[CasinoBonusMast]

Hi all,

I have seen a lot of complaints regarding self-exclusion on sister brands within the Everymatrix network in the past years. They seem to not bother detecting those SE-accounts and keep on going.. Like others said, they welcome all deposits from those players as it is sure money for them. Losing or winning, does not matter, they get to keep everything.

That being said, I also think they have some really good online casino's.. Nice games, relatively fast payouts and so on.. Moreover there are some whitelabel casino's which are run by other independent companies, and frankly I am not sure if they also apply such bad SE practices?

However, someone needs to step in on this issue, as this can't go on longer IMO.

Best

 

[jim509]

Casinobonusmaster I cant fault your comments, Casino Cruise is very well respected and they used EM as their licencer until this summer.. Okay I am bitter having lost quite abit but given online gambling has been around for some time now, it amazes me that large casino groups mannage to skirt around their responsabilities and still hold reputable licences.

I have been reading through the UK Gambling commission website. It clearly states (in its icence conditions and codes of pactice)...

'6 Licensees must put into effect procedures designed to ensure that an individual who
has self-excluded cannot gain access to gambling.'

The LCCP goes on to specify....

'b a record of the card numbers to be excluded;.'.

On the IPS site 21.co.uk I self excluded and then was able to open an account with another IPS site, Slotboss, 3 months later (admitedly with a one letter typo on my surname) and deposit £700 with the exact same card as I used on the excluded 21.co.uk site.

I have been reviewing my card transactions and statements for the last year, kind of like revisiting the site of psycopathic crime scene as I try and peice together how much I lost and where!

Over and again I find that I deposited hundreds/thousands of pounds, hit rock bottom and self exclude from a casino only to open an account and lose even more with sister casino. I can honestly say I have never submitted false registration intentionaly. How the hell do these casinos get licenced?

I am in an okay place. I am in debt but will be paying it off over the next 12 months and I have no access to further credit. But seriously! Gambling adiction is a real thing. People are taking their lives over this issue.


Given it is such an issue why is not more done to exclude a player from every gambling site, the technology must exist. But many casinos do the utter minimum and dodge their player protection requirments to try and ensure problem gamblers lose the maximum while they maintain their licences.

Rant # 2 over (sorry for any spelling mistakes, hard to edit on a battered smartphone)

 

[dunover]

Hi dunover.

Do you think there is any point my complaining to the UK Gambling Comission regarding Everymatrix and their methods regarding Self Exclusion?

Absolutely! The UKGC are aware of the EMSEB issue and are dragging their feet although I hear on good authority action is imminent regarding this loophole which only profits the casino. Excluders are GREAT revenue streams for certain casinos, as they are likely to lose control, 'do their bollocks' and never withdraw. Which it sounds like you have, and I'm sorry to hear it. By the way keep copies of any e-mails regarding this as they are time-stamped and are acceptable in legal matters as evidence.

The UKGC rules at present exacerbate this situation by not having definitive words regarding TAB/SE which all reputable casinos take to be automatic and self-set instantly. Some choose to read it otherwise and unfortunately delay TAB/SE just long enough for you to lose your shirt by making you do it by e-mail or contacting CS, thus when you are losing control this gains them that valuable window of time to relieve you of the rest of your funds while you are 'on one'. It's shit, it stinks and I think it's fucking disgusting they are allowed at present to get away with it due to the ineptitude of the UKGC and their failure to change a few words in their rules which will remove any ambiguity.

Until they do, there will always be some shithouse operations who deliberately take advantage of problem gamblers.

 

[jim509]

It is disgusting... I am refering the IPS issue to Ecogra over breach of the terms set by the UKGA in alowing a self excluded player to use a self excluded card.
I have little hope though, the casino is only to happy for me to refer to Ecogra. Ecogra will take 4 months to reject my complaint based on some t&c agreed to on signup that states the casino can shaft the player and keep all deposits.

I wish I could go straight to small claims court, but it will go against me if I dont follow procedure.

Cheers for advice. I have saved all emails.

 

[jim509]

BTW dunover.... I have tomorrow morning off from work so will be contacting the UKGC over EM and their SE practices. If I stand even a small chance at being a 'nail in the coffin' to the way EM conducts itsself I want to take it.

 

[Gavriano]

Yup.... I know this is true

While not using the self-exclusion clauses myself, I do have one player for my affiliate site I obtained locally through word of mouth. He became a bit of a problem gambler and decided to use the self-exclusion clause of a major online opeator (who shall remian nameless). It totally did not work. They kept e-mailing hm saying he was included, yet he could easily log in and play.

I think this is a little more common than one might initially think.

 

[mac72]

Absolutely! The UKGC are aware of the EMSEB issue and are dragging their feet although I hear on good authority action is imminent regarding this loophole which only profits the casino. Excluders are GREAT revenue streams for certain casinos, as they are likely to lose control, 'do their bollocks' and never withdraw. Which it sounds like you have, and I'm sorry to hear it. By the way keep copies of any e-mails regarding this as they are time-stamped and are acceptable in legal matters as evidence.

The UKGC rules at present exacerbate this situation by not having definitive words regarding TAB/SE which all reputable casinos take to be automatic and self-set instantly. Some choose to read it otherwise and unfortunately delay TAB/SE just long enough for you to lose your shirt by making you do it by e-mail or contacting CS, thus when you are losing control this gains them that valuable window of time to relieve you of the rest of your funds while you are 'on one'. It's shit, it stinks and I think it's fucking disgusting they are allowed at present to get away with it due to the ineptitude of the UKGC and their failure to change a few words in their rules which will remove any ambiguity.

Until they do, there will always be some shithouse operations who deliberately take advantage of problem gamblers.

Jim i wish you well with your phone call with UKGC but i wouldn't hold much hope with them and without knowing anything of your circumstances and how pig headed you may be unfortunately the amount of money at stake may not warrant you getting a lawyer, Maltese/Gib lawyers or International firms that work in these jurisdictions don't come cheap.

Dunover the TAB/SE is something i talked to the UKGC at length about over the last 6 months. It is a defective piece of legislation (and it will be pointed out to anyone speaking to UKGC that they don't make the legislation they just "enforce" it) for the simple reason it is open to "interpretation". It gives operators who want the chance to do exactly as you have stated, delay the procedure long enough for withdrawals to be reversed/tilt to continue. There is no given timeframe for when it has to be implemented, the UKGC will tell you they expect it to be "within a reasonable time".
Now since the minimum period for TAB is 24 hours when exactly do they think a "reasonable" time would be? There are many Casino's out there who do not offer 24/7 support so if you decide you need to action TAB at 1am on a Sunday morning for a 24hr period is "reasonable" for it to be action'd at say 11am in the morning? (some don't even have support on a sunday so it will be 11am monday). NO of course it is not if you want a break for a day you obviously don't want it in 1 or 2 days time, all that had to be done with the rules regarding SE/TAB was make it clear cut, it should be fully automated and instant. In the case of SE it should lock the account immediately but require a SE form filling out when support return to rubber stamp it -the ramifications of SE are onerous and customers have to be made fully aware of exactly what they are doing as there is no coming back.

You are dealing with relatively new legislation but i can't help but think it was badly thought out and far too open to operator abuse.Why have rules that aren't watertight, all it does is lead to issues.Here is another example , the UKGC insist that anyone holding a licence has a UK presence - ""So if an applicant’s head office and registered office addresses are overseas, the applicant will have to provide a correspondence address that is in the UK. That address must be a genuine address at which such papers can be served that will reach the applicant in good time. The address cannot be a PO Box address and needs to be somewhere where the applicant, for example, has a consistent staff presence or it could be the address of an official representative of the applicant such as an accountant, solicitor or auditor. Such a correspondence address in the UK must be maintained for the life of the licence, if granted."
The UKGC require this so "they can contact the operator over licencing issues and do so in the UK without having to correspond with Malta/Gib etc.". BUT this is only for the UKGC's benefit, they will not disclose that UK address to you and in many instances neither will the Operator so Joe punter has to run off and deal with them in offshore jurisdiction's. I can think of no legitimate reason any Company you are dealing with can't disclose a business address in a Country they are operating in?

SE gets even messier the other way around ie when you HAVEN'T self excluded but there is data there to say that you have. I had a recent issue where i opened an account with "Dunder" to find it blocked as i was "permanently self excluded from BETSPIN". I had NEVER SE'd from BETSPIN (this all came about from GUTS closing account) and worse had been happily playing away at RIZK for 6months or more. Now the usual suspects will say "oh but the people at RIZK will realise their mistake and sort that out" . That does not wash with me one iota given that in another thread Yuts Gits (he can't get my name right either) said "Hi mac82 - to back up Captain Rizk, you are welcome to have an account with Guts too - albeit one restricted from reload bonuses but allowing for free spins eligibility due to the fact that some notes I have dug up from back in the days this happened to you that the decision was also based on apparent links to other accounts to maximise the use of available bonuses.
Now please BEFORE you go ballistic at my statement above let me once again outline - I do not know whether it is accurate or not - I am just stating information that I am receiving. It might well even be inaccurate, as I mentioned was well before my time, on a different gaming platform - I did not make nor assess these decisions.

The potential for disaster here is huge , what happens if you have a massive win a year or two down the line at RIZK? I only knew there was data saying i was self-excluded because i opened the Dunder account. Had i not what was to say staff hadn't left or the company had been sold and when it came to my payout i was told "sorry your self-excluded payout denied".You simply cannot say that is not a possibility ,someone mentioned in another thread that you could prove you hadn't self-excluded but that isn't an option, you can only prove that you DID (copy of email stating you wish to self exclude) you won't have anything to prove the alternative, so if said casino says to you "prove you DIDN'T SE" what exactly are you going to come up with?? The issue i had with GUTS only dates back to February 2015 ,Tony (who blocked the account) is still there and already they can't find the backup to qualify exactly what the issue was with my account but Yits felt free to throw out the "apparent links to other accounts to maximise the use of available bonuses" and despite having the open opportunity for 8months (asked in thread guts/betspin/rizk and generally the issue with groups and operators linked by licence) and numerous emails to everyone in charge at Guts/Rizk to qualify or retract those remarks he hasn't done so.Neither have they been able to sort the mess out with accounts being closed/opened/closed despite assurances in that thread 8 months ago that "procedures had been put in place" - i'm still dealing with this shit currently.

It's one thing to be denied an account but quite another to be playing on a platform where information is floating about that you "shouldn't be there,permanently self excluded" especially when its apparent to me at least that as time passes ("back in the day" to Tony/Yits is 1 year) they may well not be able to get any backup for that info, what exactly are you going to do then????
In essence SE is a mess but it has the potential for disaster BOTH ways and i actually think the scenario outlined above could turn out to be even more of a problem especially where GUTS/RIZK/BETSPIN etc are concerned.

Here is an extract of the communication from RIZK after the DUNDER issue: "We have investigated your case thoroughly with our sister sites and your account was first blocked at Betspin due to bonus abuse. The permanent Self-exclusion was set on the account to prevent you from creating any accounts on our network and to prevent you from abusing our promotions.
However, when you wanted to create an account with Rizk.com we gave you a benefit of doubt and made you an exception.We've been happy to have you and would like to see you continue playing "

It was first blocked at GUTS (hadn't heard of BETSPIN then) and I NEVER played at BETSPIN and the tone of "gave you the benefit of the doubt" well that really rattled my cage, i didn't need the benefit of the doubt , it was their mess right from day one at GUTS (read the guts/betspin/rizk and problems with operator sharing licences thread). Its crystal clear to me that if that is the result of a "thorough" investigation their business is just a mess.
And if your "permanently self-excluded" thats it, your self excluded as i must have been given: Captain Rizk 21st march "Earlier this month we upgraded our cross referencing software and procedures to ensure that these type of situations should not happen in the future, this means that anyone that has an exclusion from any of the brands should NOT even be able to register at another brand during an exclusion period. "

 

[jim509]

Mac72 it is even more of a mess than I thought then.

Call me nieve but don't understand why this issue exists? The UKGC should set the Licence t&cs and if the casino falls out of line the UKGC sorts them out or removes the licence.

The wording of the regulations seems self explanitory to me, I have copied some of the SR Code provision by which the casinos have to comply (if licenced by the UKGC).......

Social responsibility code provision 3.5.3
Self-exclusion – remote SR code
All remote licences except: gaming machine technical, gambling software, ancillary
remote bingo, ancillary remote casino, betting intermediary (trading room only) and
remote betting (standard) (remote platform) licences
1 Licensees must have and put into effect procedures for self-exclusion and take all reasonable
steps to refuse service or to otherwise prevent an individual who has entered a self-exclusion
agreement from participating in gambling.
2 Licensees must, as soon as practicable, take all reasonable steps to prevent any marketing
material being sent to a self-excluded customer.
3 Licensees must take steps to remove the name and details of a self-excluded individual from
any marketing databases used by the company or group (or otherwise flag that person as an
individual to whom marketing material must not be sent), within two days of receiving the
completed self-exclusion notification.
4 This covers any marketing material relating to gambling. However, it would not extend to
blanket marketing which is targeted at a particular geographical area and where the excluded
individual would not knowingly be included.
5 Licensees must close any customer accounts of an individual who has entered a self-
exclusion agreement and return any funds held in the customer account. It is not sufficient
merely to prevent an individual from withdrawing funds from their customer account whilst still
accepting wagers from them. Where the giving of credit is permitted, the licensee may retain
details of the amount owed to them by the individual, although the account must not be
active.
6 Licensees must put into effect procedures designed to ensure that an individual who
has self-excluded cannot gain access to gambling. These procedures must include:
a a register of those excluded with appropriate records (name, address, other details,
and any membership or account details that may be held by the operator);
b a record of the card numbers to be excluded;
c staff training to ensure that staff are able to administer effectively the systems; and
d the removal of access from those persons found to have gambled or who have
attempted to gamble on the facilities.
7 Licensees must when administering the self-exclusion signpost the individual to counselling
and support services.
8 Customers must be given the opportunity to self-exclude by contacting customer services
and in addition by entering an automated process using remote communication. In order to
avoid inadvertent self-exclusion it is acceptable for an automated process to include an
additional step that requires the customer to confirm that they wish to self-exclude. The
licensee must ensure that all staff who are involved in direct customer service are aware of
the self-exclusion system in place, and are able to direct that individual to an immediate point
of contact with whom/which to complete that process.'

When a player SE the card number should also be excluded. This was not done by casino Luck so they did not stick to their licence obligations.

 

[dunover]

Mac72 - it's not a 'defective piece of legislation' as it's not a statute, law or Act of Parliament. The rule is simply a paragraph (ill-thought out) by a body that has the authority vested in it by the Govt. to oversee the Gambling Industry. As such it can be wiped with Tippex tomorrow by the UKGC. I have a 2-part official complaint in at the UKGC at the moment having provided them with evidence they requested. I've not heard a peep in 3 months since their first reply and me submitting the subsequent e-mail evidence, and neither do I expect the useless w*nkers to ever reply.

The wording is simply ill-considered and has proved ambiguous (to unethical casinos, not good ones) but due to their total intransigence and ineptitude they cannot seem to find the nous to remedy it with a few simple words. We should bin the fucking useless UKGC off and have a new more consumer - friendly and proactive QUANGO maybe along the lines of OFGEN - maybe 'OFGAM' ??

Then OFGAM can be staffed with people who actually have experience of the industry as opposed to Civil Service retirees, i.e. from the consumer side, the provider side and legal side. Then adverts/bonuses can be vetted for transparency, cash-out delays abolished and TAB/SE rules clarified. Of course that would lead to far less complaints and less work for them..

Dream on.....

 

[jim509]

Dunover, I could do with your advice... In my previous post I copied some of the terms of Social Responsability code from the UKGC relating to Self Exclusion. However now I am not sure whether those regulations are relating to licences held by Eveymatrix and IPS.
I understand they must have a remote licence but unsure whethere this is (standard) remote betting?

ocial responsibility code provision 3.5.3
Self-exclusion – remote SR code
All remote licences except: gaming machine technical, gambling software, ancillary*
remote bingo, ancillary remote casino, betting intermediary (trading room only) and*
remote betting (standard) (remote platform) licences*

Where are the exact stated requirments for self exclusion from the UKGC that goven the likes of Everymatrix and IPS?

I want to be 100% sure I know this before I make an official complaint.

If you could point me in the correct direction I would really appreciate it. Cheers, J

 

[dunover]

Dunover, I could do with your advice... In my previous post I copied some of the terms of Social Responsability code from the UKGC relating to Self Exclusion. However now I am not sure whether those regulations are relating to licences held by Eveymatrix and IPS.
I understand they must have a remote licence but unsure whethere this is (standard) remote betting?



Where are the exact stated requirments for self exclusion from the UKGC that goven the likes of Everymatrix and IPS?

I want to be 100% sure I know this before I make an official complaint.

If you could point me in the correct direction I would really appreciate it. Cheers, J

The word 'group' is in the (again) rather woolly terms. The 'group' must take steps etc. for exclusion as a remote gambling operator, as it says. The piece you have here above is referring to software/technical side. As none of the casinos you had an issue with could operate here without a UK license, then it's only logical and reasonable to consider EM is the 'group' in this case.

 

[jim509]

Thanks Dunover, you're a star.

Wow... The wording of the guidlines really are a slippery mess of semantics and ambiguity.

So... Though the terms I quoted are not directly applicable to EM or IPS, but since EM and IPS are casino groups who bundle together services such as software and tec which ARE govened by the terms I quoted I can use the self exclusion terms as set out by the SR code as leverage in a complaint against EM and IPS...... I think.....

Thanks again Dunover

 

[mac72]

Mac72 - it's not a 'defective piece of legislation' as it's not a statute, law or Act of Parliament. The rule is simply a paragraph (ill-thought out) by a body that has the authority vested in it by the Govt. to oversee the Gambling Industry. As such it can be wiped with Tippex tomorrow by the UKGC. I have a 2-part official complaint in at the UKGC at the moment having provided them with evidence they requested. I've not heard a peep in 3 months since their first reply and me submitting the subsequent e-mail evidence, and neither do I expect the useless w*nkers to ever reply.

The wording is simply ill-considered and has proved ambiguous (to unethical casinos, not good ones) but due to their total intransigence and ineptitude they cannot seem to find the nous to remedy it with a few simple words. We should bin the fucking useless UKGC off and have a new more consumer - friendly and proactive QUANGO maybe along the lines of OFGEN - maybe 'OFGAM' ??

Then OFGAM can be staffed with people who actually have experience of the industry as opposed to Civil Service retirees, i.e. from the consumer side, the provider side and legal side. Then adverts/bonuses can be vetted for transparency, cash-out delays abolished and TAB/SE rules clarified. Of course that would lead to far less complaints and less work for them..

Dream on.....

Thanks Dunover, i was actually going by what the UKGC were saying without trawling through 100's of pages of legislation (Gambling Act 2005). The UKGC take on it was that LCCP were taken directly from the 2005 Act which they had no powers to modify - i've now put them over that twice, however ask them to confirm anything in writing and they will refuse.
I've now looked at the act in some detail and i assume what you are saying is that the LCCP is of their own creation and design using their interpretation of the act? And whereas the act has to be modified by Parliament they have the ability to strengthen the TAB/SE rules within the LCCP themselves (or write them correctly in the first place)???

 

[maluren]

My experience with OddsMatrix Casinos is simple. If you lose your money its all fine and nobody cares about your self exlusion done in some sister site, as soon as you want to cash out a winning they do care about your self exclusion and void the winnings.

 

[jim509]

My experience with OddsMatrix Casinos is simple. If you lose your money its all fine and nobody cares about your self exlusion done in some sister site, as soon as you want to cash out a winning they do care about your self exclusion and void the winnings.

Yeah, I hear ya. Oddsmatrix the bastardised offspring of everymatrix seem to have the exact same self exclusion policy i.e. self exclude and we will proccess your deposits. If you win we will keep your deposit and winnings (refund the deposit if lucky) if you lose we will swallow the lot.

If a player self excludes, they are admiting that they have a major problem and need help. Any decent casino group would block the name and dob of any self excluded player to prevent another account being opened.

How hard can it be to self exclude a player? The truth is the casinos dont want to exclude any player, in particular a problem gambler who gives them so much cash.

The UKGC needs to tighten its regulations and start inforcing its standards.

 

[lord flashheart]

Yeah, I hear ya. Oddsmatrix the bastardised offspring of everymatrix seem to have the exact same self exclusion policy i.e. self exclude and we will proccess your deposits. If you win we will keep your deposit and winnings (refund the deposit if lucky) if you lose we will swallow the lot.

If a player self excludes, they are admiting that they have a major problem and need help. Any decent casino group would block the name and dob of any self excluded player to prevent another account being opened.

How hard can it be to self exclude a player? The truth is the casinos dont want to exclude any player, in particular a problem gambler who gives them so much cash.

The UKGC needs to tighten its regulations and start inforcing its standards.

Oddsmatrix is the sports betting platform of everymatrix, so it's the same company / policy.

No decent casino group would block the name & DOB - Anyone with a could share the same name & DOB, which would equally cause unnecessary issues. Even if they blocked the entire players details including address, this will still fail if the player moves.

The main problem with the Everymatrix platform is that the majority of the casinos / sportsbooks are whitelabel sites, So it may be plausible that they aren't allowed to share SE information. It probably only appears at the backend through their payments / management system once a payment is requested.

If everymatrix could share SE information, the simplest way to attempt to stop this would be to send out email addresses overtime someone self excludes, and to add that to their (php, SQL or whatever) database and mark it as banned thus issuing an error "contact customer services" or "account is self excluded"

of course this can easily be circumvented by signing up using a different email - but if someone uses a different email, than that is their fault.

Or perhaps they should ask during the sign up process - do you have an account at ......? and list all the everymatrix casinos if anything is checked, i'm sure it could easily be cross referenced for SE and then the account refused to be opened. This would also rely on the honesty of the player though.