GamStop excluded but allowed to deposit £2600

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

WOW ok. Just want to point out after reading all these comments I think what we can agree on is the system is flawed heavily and there really is no support in this area for problem gamblers although you would think there is with the services etc. in place. I mean I don't think it really is that difficult like someone said if you created a simple tool to check against the database this will work they don't even need access to it. If you put in the T&C's of GamStop that you consent to your data being shared with the casinos then GDPR wont matter.

** Update on this anyway.

GamStop have sent certificate but did not copy in William Hill like i asked several times so i send them over the certificate and waiting to hear back.

 

[colinsunderland]

But you do not get my point! they would not get a list of 100000 customers. That is the whole thing you are completely overlooking. So I will stop replying and again I say agree to disagree.

And you're not getting my point, it doesn't matter if the casino or GameStop do the check, if the details don't match, there won't be a positive response.

 

[Slottery]

WOW ok. Just want to point out after reading all these comments I think what we can agree on is the system is flawed heavily and there really is no support in this area for problem gamblers although you would think there is with the services etc. in place. I mean I don't think it really is that difficult like someone said if you created a simple tool to check against the database this will work they don't even need access to it. If you put in the T&C's of GamStop that you consent to your data being shared with the casinos then GDPR wont matter.

** Update on this anyway.

GamStop have sent certificate but did not copy in William Hill like i asked several times so i send them over the certificate and waiting to hear back.

Gamstop is really shitty system, just to confirm that I'm not trying to say they are good or defence them but just how it work in practice.

Casinos do exactly what you say, every time when UK player login (or register account), they send these details to Gamstop and get reply based on amount of matching details. It's really poorly made because these phone numbers and emails shouldn't really be anyhow details there as we all (guess we are all adults on gambling forum) know how fast it is to open new email address and phone number is not really hard either (some places don't even verify phone numbers but only that these are not registered to Gamstop).

No UK player can't login to their account without Gamstop check, that's really maybe one reason why system is not really flexible as that check need to be done on every login so making it anyhow manual would be quite impossible as if you don't have someone to check it right away, then next day when same player come back you need to do it again and if somebody login after five minutes, check it again. There are no logins from UK where this Gamstop check is not completed.

Unfortunately there are these some details which are really easy to change and then it don't need many spelling "mistakes" to get around it. Don't wanna share any exact details which do or not trigger these alerts as that would only possibly provide guideline to someone how to get around Gamstop.

It should be really black and white with this case as well, you can ask opinions here when you get William Hill reply, if there are enough matches, they can't really refuse payment but if there are some really stupid sounding discrepancies, casinos are 100% safe if Gamstop didn't flag these details. I really don't agree how they do it, only thing where i do agree with them that it should be black and white without gray areas but getting there with details like email and phone number is just not doing what it should.

 

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

So no response since I sent documentation yesterday how long do you think I should wait before emailing or something?

 

[CasinoNinja]

Be patient, wait until the end of the week.

 

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

Be patient, wait until the end of the week.

Yeh i haven't replied back or anything again to chase just wanted to know when it was reasonable to. I was speaking to my brother and what he said shocked me even more actually, He said at one point he deposited £941 in one transaction is this not a red flag after hundreds being deposited previously in a very short space of time?

 

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

Your complaint:
I write to you in response to the issues you have raised whereby you state you have been able to gamble with William Hill Online during a period of Gamstop self-exclusion.

Our Investigation:
We have now received a copy of the Gamstop registration certificate and have compared these to your registration details with William Hill Online. On investigating I can see that you signed up to Gamstop on 23/11/2018 and opted to do this for a period of 5 years. During this period of Self exclusion you opted to register account 38285PS with William Hill Online on 26/06/2021.

Reviewing your Gamstop credentials certificate and cross referencing this with the registered details on account 38285PS we have found discrepancies between the details provided to Gamstop to that registered on your William Hill account, these discrepancies include:
• First name
• Mobile telephone number
• Email address

When registering with Gamstop you are made aware of their terms of use. I would like to bring your attention to:
Your Self-Exclusion
During your self-exclusion, you will be prevented from accessing any accounts with online gambling operators registered with the Gambling Commission that match the details you have provided to us as part of your application. It is in your interest to provide us with accurate details consistent with those which you have used to set up accounts with online gambling operators. GAMSTOP may not be able to spot inaccuracies or other differences in account details, and we may not be able to prevent you accessing accounts you have created using.

Your Responsibility
You understand that self-exclusion using GAMSTOP is intended to be an aid to help you manage your use of online gambling websites. It is not intended to function as a replacement for willpower, is not foolproof and we cannot guarantee that it will always result in your being denied access to gambling websites.
Your self-exclusion using GAMSTOP will be most effective if you do not try to work around the exclusion measures GAMSTOP has put in place. You agree not to attempt to register new gambling accounts, log in to any of your existing accounts, or in any other way try to circumvent GAMSTOP's mechanisms for the duration of your self-exclusion. You are entirely responsible for any actions you take designed to circumvent any self-exclusion registered with GAMSTOP.

I can confirm that your account has been suspended since 29/06/2021, and once we received information regarding your period of self exclusion via Gamstop this was immediately applied to your account. We have also identified a number of additional accounts registered with William Hill Online and have ensured that these have been sanctioned accordingly.

In regards to your comments around verification I can see that account 38285PS was verified electronically upon creation on 26/06/2021 prior to accepting any deposits in line with regulatory requirements. To address your comments around source of funds documentation, please note that once internal threasholds are met affordability reviews and source of funds documentation is requested. This process is in line with regulatory requirements, reviewing your account I can not see a time whereby your account reach an internal threshold.

Outcome of our investigation:

In conclusion, whilst I understand your frustration with this matter, I can absolutely assure you that William Hill has not acted irresponsibly in the handling of your account and certainly has not contravened any form of regulatory legislation. As such, due the reasons previously outlined it would not be appropriate for us to offer any form of recompense in this instance.

Next steps
This is our final response to your complaint. As such, we will not be engaging further with you about your complaint. If you remain dissatisfied with our response, it is open to you to put the complaint to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) for ADR (alternative dispute resolution). This is a free service for consumers who are dissatisfied with the outcome of a complaint or dispute and want to request an independent review. More information about the service provided by IBAS can be found at

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

or by calling 0207 347 5883. If prompted for a deadlock reference you may provide WHO210701-015651.

It would also be open to you to put a regulatory concern about this matter to the Gambling Commission. More information about how to do so is available on the Commission’s website:

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

Kind Regards,

Emma
William Hill Online


So just received this. There is no information as to what the name actually was as far as i'm aware it was all correct only thing different was email and phone number.

They have sent the final response which means they will not even deal with this now. I wanted to know what the name they are stating this is and show proof of this. IBAS wont accept this as a case either. How have they been allowed to just get away with this.

What are safe gambling thresholds is £2600 not enough to be flagged.

How did they verify this if the first name is incorrect?

I find this quite disturbing can anyone shed some light on this please.

 

[colinsunderland]

Have a look through promotional emails from them, they usually have your first name in. If not, ask them?

 

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

Have a look through promotional emails from them, they usually have your first name in. If not, ask them?

Asked them waiting for an email back no emails as the account was quite new

 

[colinsunderland]

Asked them waiting for an email back no emails as the account was quite new

did you not get a welcome email from them?
You are very unlikely to get a refund if 3 data points were changed I'm afraid. Add to that it seems as though you were multi accounting.
If you get any trouble from them regarding telling you the exact spelling you can do a SAR to get it.

 

[chiya]

This thread just seems a whole lot suspicious to me..

If you hadn't lost but instead won.. I mean sorry, if your brother had won and not lost, would you be complaining about gamstop not functioning as intended?

To me it seems yet again another classic case of trying to cheat the system via self-exclusion and then demand refund when things don't go as planned.

Email, phone AND first name changed from the gamstop deets? Yeah it's pretty obvious why it didn't get flagged. Gamstop isn't some magical almighty tool that can still flag accounts accordingly even when the user intentionally cheats the system.

 

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

did you not get a welcome email from them?
You are very unlikely to get a refund if 3 data points were changed I'm afraid. Add to that it seems as though you were multi accounting.
If you get any trouble from them regarding telling you the exact spelling you can do a SAR to get it.

Ok So they have advised what name was used but it is a blatant lie from them. I know my brother can lie to me and obviously not tell me 100% the truth but it don't make sense anyway why he would change a vital piece of information his first name as if he went to withdraw surely he would be asked for proof etc which he knows.

Now the bit that gets me is if the first name is totally incorrect how did they verify his account and allow him to deposit £2600 when even the ccard wouldn't have matched etc.

Either they are lying or there is a serious issue with their systems.

 

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

This thread just seems a whole lot suspicious to me..

If you hadn't lost but instead won.. I mean sorry, if your brother had won and not lost, would you be complaining about gamstop not functioning as intended?

To me it seems yet again another classic case of trying to cheat the system via self-exclusion and then demand refund when things don't go as planned.

Email, phone AND first name changed from the gamstop deets? Yeah it's pretty obvious why it didn't get flagged. Gamstop isn't some magical almighty tool that can still flag accounts accordingly even when the user intentionally cheats the system.

Your totally entitled to your own opinion but read my last post how are you going to verify someone and allow them to deposit when the details don't match like even if he had won how is he going to magic a different name on his passport it don't make sense.

Look i gamble within my limits and have no problems but the gambling industry as a whole is quite a deep dark disgusting place. I have a current issue with one casino who are with holding a £4000 withdrawal and as you can see in the previous posts the system is flawed people do genuinely have addictions and can't control themselves. There's always one person that has to comment and low ball the whole situation e.g you and it's just not needed.

 

[dec2008mcl]

Ok So they have advised what name was used but it is a blatant lie from them. I know my brother can lie to me and obviously not tell me 100% the truth but it don't make sense anyway why he would change a vital piece of information his first name as if he went to withdraw surely he would be asked for proof etc which he knows.

Now the bit that gets me is if the first name is totally incorrect how did they verify his account and allow him to deposit £2600 when even the ccard wouldn't have matched etc.

Either they are lying or there is a serious issue with their systems.

What name was on the welcome email, I think colin already asked this but I can't see an answer (sorry if i have missed it).
You said "ccard" - obvs this is a typo and you don't mean credit card? don't think casinos automatically check name on cards anyway.

 

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

What name was on the welcome email, I think colin already asked this but I can't see an answer (sorry if i have missed it).
You said "ccard" - obvs this is a typo and you don't mean credit card? don't think casinos automatically check name on cards anyway.

Meant card just saying that usually if the name is wrong transaction would get declined maybe i'm wrong and to answer your question name on the email is what they stated it is.

Quite odd but hey i don't know. t. I've already explained if that if the name was wrong nothing can be done but was assured that's not the case.

Looks like a lost cause as it was his own fault for depositing and even more so if he used a different name.

However back to the initial point how did they verify the account?

If i sign up with the name William Hill and use my own DOB Adress etc will they verify my account and let me deposit?

 

[dec2008mcl]

No the transaction would not get declined. There are people here that would know better than me but I think welcome emails are automatic and would use the details used to sign up, so we can agree the person used a different name. If the named person does not match at the address I don't know how it was electronically verified.

 

[SpinUk]

Ok So they have advised what name was used but it is a blatant lie from them. I know my brother can lie to me and obviously not tell me 100% the truth but it don't make sense anyway why he would change a vital piece of information his first name as if he went to withdraw surely he would be asked for proof etc which he knows.

Now the bit that gets me is if the first name is totally incorrect how did they verify his account and allow him to deposit £2600 when even the ccard wouldn't have matched etc.

Either they are lying or there is a serious issue with their systems.

If the first name was Thomas then they put Tom that is an example of how you could be verified (I know from experience) and paid even if your name says Thomas on the passport. But the Gamestop system would not pick up from that similarity as it would have Thomas registered.

Pete - Peter
Nick - Nicholas

Is that what happened?

 

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

If the first name was Thomas then they put Tom that is an example of how you could be verified (I know from experience) and paid even if your name says Thomas on the passport. But the Gamestop system would not pick up from that similarity as it would have Thomas registered.

Pete - Peter
Nick - Nicholas

Is that what happened?

No it was a completely different name more like...

Steve - John

 

[SpinUk]

No the transaction would not get declined. There are people here that would know better than me but I think welcome emails are automatic and would use the details used to sign up, so we can agree the person used a different name. If the named person does not match at the address I don't know how it was electronically verified.

Correct authentication sometimes done on surname with some banks as well as CCV and postcode.

 

[Bonus_Hunter2022]

I understand why people are quick to jump at people when they try and get around the system but i think the casinos just love these type of people as how can they allow something to happen. As we know due to recent regulations you have to be verified before depositing. Now can anyone explain how this was verified if the name was incorrect it seems they know what they are doing and it's disgusting but that's just my view.

 

[colinsunderland]

Ok So they have advised what name was used but it is a blatant lie from them. I know my brother can lie to me and obviously not tell me 100% the truth but it don't make sense anyway why he would change a vital piece of information his first name as if he went to withdraw surely he would be asked for proof etc which he knows.

Now the bit that gets me is if the first name is totally incorrect how did they verify his account and allow him to deposit £2600 when even the ccard wouldn't have matched etc.

Either they are lying or there is a serious issue with their systems.

I very much doubt they are lying if I'm being honest. This isn't a 2 bit casino with a few customers, it's William Hill, and although £2600 is probably a lot to your brother, it is literally pennies to them.
Get him to forward you the welcome email, that will tell you what it was registered as. Or do a SAR and get the information from them.
As to why would he use a different name, I think you know the answer to that.

 

[colinsunderland]

I understand why people are quick to jump at people when they try and get around the system but i think the casinos just love these type of people as how can they allow something to happen. As we know due to recent regulations you have to be verified before depositing. Now can anyone explain how this was verified if the name was incorrect it seems they know what they are doing and it's disgusting but that's just my view.

They will have checked the surname and age, thats all they need to check.

 

[pinnit2014]

Correct authentication sometimes done on surname with some banks as well as CCV and postcode.

Is it standard across card providers to do so?

Been times Mrs P has said 'use my card' if buying something online (non casino obvs) and the transaction goes through but there 's been a few times where it didn't (but those are in the minority)

 

[dec2008mcl]

No it was a completely different name more like...

Steve - John

What did his bank say?

 

[colinsunderland]

Is it standard across card providers to do so?

Been times Mrs P has said 'use my card' if buying something online (non casino obvs) and the transaction goes through but there 's been a few times where it didn't (but those are in the minority)

no, usually its address more than anything else. When I was doing 'customer not present' transactions, we had to put the numbers from the postcode in, if they matched that was accepted.

 

[continental]

I think we are kind of missing the point (first post, be gentle!) regardless of changed details and the 'brother'...

If I signed up to William Hill with totally invented details, Carmen Flumparse, 28 Bucket street, NOB1 3HR then I wont be able to open an account. The system will reject me as it will run checks and know its not a real person. But if I put in my real details e.g John smith, 1 Ash lane, NG1 4HDetc (not my details) it will allow me to open an account as the system runs checks that I am who I say I am. From then on they will only require verification if I deposit vast sums or withdraw large amounts.

However, if I sign myself up to Gamstop using my real name, say, John smith, 1 Ash lane, NG1 4HD but then open an account with William Hill using a different spelling of my last name e.g. John Smithe with an 'e' I bypass gamstop but still get verified by William Hill and am allowed to problem gamble.

If a casino can verify your details enough for you to open an account with them and play, they also have enough details to identify a problem player, even with alternate spellings. But they don't. Problem gamblers are too good an income stream.

They only need to match two bits of info to trigger a request for ID, e.g. anyone called 'John' who lives at a certain postcode. Or any one with the same DOB and postcode. If any of these bits of info correspond with a Gamstop registration further verifcation could be requested.

In short, if you can be verified enough to deposit and play you can be verified enough to identify yourself as a problem gambler who has signed up with Gamstop. Many casinos wont though as it makes them money.

 

[maxd]

Bryan and I discussed this at some length a few podcasts back. The bottom line is that Gamstop does the bare minimum necessary to claim that it helps stop problem gamblers from gambling. The caveat is that it works IF AND ONLY IF the player uses the same data -- with only very slight variance allowed -- when they register at a new casino as they used when they registered at Gamstop.

This is the 21st Century, that's simply lame. I wrote better search algorithms than that back in the 1980's. Things have progressed a little since then and I'm having a very difficult time trying to image how Gamstop can justify their algorithm as it currently stands.

I for one believe that if Gamstop is going to claim to help stop gamblers from gambling then they damn well need to try a little harder to do that. Catching a player's re-registration should be the norm regardless of variance in the user data, not the exception. Sure, if a player completely falsifies their info then Gamstop could obviously be excused for not catching it. But that is very, Very, VERY far from the case as things are with Gamstop today. I've talked to a lot of players with Gamstop complaints and the bottom line is that you can "beat" Gamstop without even trying to: it's not uncommon for it to happen accidentally. And this is an industry standard for blocking player re-registrations? I'm sorry but that's pathetic performance and it's about time people like us -- casino industry types -- made that clear.

This problem is now especially severe since the UKGC has adopted Gamstop as their solution to self-exclusion problems in the UK: UK-licensed casinos are supposed to enroll with Gamstop and rely on that as their primary tool to help players manage their self-exclusion issues. But if the tool is feeble -- and it is since people can "beat" Gamstop without even trying to do so -- then the "solution" is fundamentally flawed and the responsibility for that lies with both Gamstop and the UKGC. Until Gamstop is vastly more effective than it currently is at catching player re-registrations this whole thing is a bit of a farce.

 

[continental]

This has absolutely been my experience with Gamstop. It simply is not fit for purpose.

I gave up online gambling as I had a few episodes where I lost control. I thought Gamstop would be the answer when it was rolled out, but it really wasn't. For me the thing that worked was UKGC casinos not accepting credit cards any more and my banking with a Bank who would block gambling transactions. Gambling is no longer an issue for me but I have a keen interest in Gamstop's failure and the shortcomings of the UKGC which is why I am here!

Various UK Gambling representatives are often wheeled out on the media here, BBC etc to say how strongly they support problem gamblers it is only the very small minority who problem gamble. They also hold up Gamstop as the gold standard of player protection and it makes me sick to be honest.

Gamstop could make itself fit for purpose today if it wanted to. If just two pieces of information were used to identify a possible problem gambler a request could be made at registration for the player to send ID to make sure they are not a gambler who has signed up to Gamstop. If they are not they could be easily allowed to play. This could even be extended to a postcode being flagged up as having a problem gambler living there, any player could be asked to send ID to double check they are not that Gamstop gambler, it would take less than a min for the gambler to prove who they are. I have come to the conclusion that Gamstop simply does not want to be that effective.

I have to admit that things have got a little better. There are some online UKGC casinos who instantly flag up a Gamstop player even when quite a few details are changed. However there are many who really do not, I won't list them here as I don't want anyone with a gambling issue to try them!

Also I know people who had issues that UKGC casinos permit signup and large deposits but then require verification when you want to withdraw, this is a big no from the UKGC LCCP that states that if the player is verified to deposit and play the casino can't then demand verification on withdrawal when they had a reasonable time frame to request it before. But holding casinos to account is nearly impossible.

Another irritation of mine is that many UKGC casinos have pages and pages on how much they support player protection but the actual page for accessing time out or self exclusion is buried and it is not possible to email the support, you have to do an online chat that is not available 24/7 as it is often stated. You are forced, as a problem gamble, to sign in to access help and it can be tempting to chase losses instead. I understand that anyone could have a bad run of gambling and overact and hit the self exclude button but help should be readily accessible.

The UKGC and Gamstop does not deserve the high reputation it holds.

 

[dec2008mcl]

This has absolutely been my experience with Gamstop. It simply is not fit for purpose.

I gave up online gambling as I had a few episodes where I lost control. I thought Gamstop would be the answer when it was rolled out, but it really wasn't. For me the thing that worked was UKGC casinos not accepting credit cards any more and my banking with a Bank who would block gambling transactions. Gambling is no longer an issue for me but I have a keen interest in Gamstop's failure and the shortcomings of the UKGC which is why I am here!

Various UK Gambling representatives are often wheeled out on the media here, BBC etc to say how strongly they support problem gamblers it is only the very small minority who problem gamble. They also hold up Gamstop as the gold standard of player protection and it makes me sick to be honest.

Gamstop could make itself fit for purpose today if it wanted to. If just two pieces of information were used to identify a possible problem gambler a request could be made at registration for the player to send ID to make sure they are not a gambler who has signed up to Gamstop. If they are not they could be easily allowed to play. This could even be extended to a postcode being flagged up as having a problem gambler living there, any player could be asked to send ID to double check they are not that Gamstop gambler, it would take less than a min for the gambler to prove who they are. I have come to the conclusion that Gamstop simply does not want to be that effective.

I have to admit that things have got a little better. There are some online UKGC casinos who instantly flag up a Gamstop player even when quite a few details are changed. However there are many who really do not, I won't list them here as I don't want anyone with a gambling issue to try them!

Also I know people who had issues that UKGC casinos permit signup and large deposits but then require verification when you want to withdraw, this is a big no from the UKGC LCCP that states that if the player is verified to deposit and play the casino can't then demand verification on withdrawal when they had a reasonable time frame to request it before. But holding casinos to account is nearly impossible.

Another irritation of mine is that many UKGC casinos have pages and pages on how much they support player protection but the actual page for accessing time out or self exclusion is buried and it is not possible to email the support, you have to do an online chat that is not available 24/7 as it is often stated. You are forced, as a problem gamble, to sign in to access help and it can be tempting to chase losses instead. I understand that anyone could have a bad run of gambling and overact and hit the self exclude button but help should be readily accessible.

The UKGC and Gamstop does not deserve the high reputation it holds.

The ukgc does not have a high reputation, it is in the bin. Full of corruption and brown envelopes. There are some good MPs who are finally putting pressure where it matters. I personally think that's why online slots have went to the dogs here, they are raking it in before the legislation of the updated gambling act gets through the houses and the screw is tightened.
Betblocker on all devices is a good way for those who want to quit, although I have heard of some casinos have got ways to get round even that, however you can manually enter these addresses into the software to block them.

 

[continental]

Well I am so pleased that the UKGC does not have the reputation it once did.

The ukgc does not have a high reputation, it is in the bin. Full of corruption and brown envelopes. There are some good MPs who are finally putting pressure where it matters. I personally think that's why online slots have went to the dogs here, they are raking it in before the legislation of the updated gambling act gets through the houses and the screw is tightened.
Betblocker on all devices is a good way for those who want to quit, although I have heard of some casinos have got ways to get round even that, however you can manually enter these addresses into the software to block them.

It's defo corruption. A quick search on google and you can read lots of articles about MP's who took gambling jobs before reviewing betting laws etc. It seems to be a well known fact!
People are actually killing themselves over problem gambling so I hope there is a deep pit in Hell reserved for those who actively facilitate problem gamblers not being protected.

Worth knowing about Betblocker. For me it was my bank HSBC blocking transactions that worked. The moment I knew that I could not deposit any urge to gamble went as I knew I could not.

 

[slot_zombie]

For me, the issue was that I lost most of my accounts after taking a short break from gambling via GamStop, a couple of years ago.

Exclusion is supposed to be for the specified period only, what they don't tell you is that you will be about as welcome at most casinos as Covid-19 after your exclusion ends. They will simply refuse to do business with you or set a laughably low mandatory monthly deposit limit.

So I would say unless you REALLY have a gambling problem and want to stop forever, don't bother. Not like I play outside of Curacao much these days anyway, due to all the UKGC interference and regulations, but if I didn't want to do that I'd be mighty sore about it.

 

[goatwack]

Seems the industry has decreed Gamstop as the one-size-fits-all golden tourniquet which those non-industry serfs can use to make regulators and gambling companies feel better about themselves.

I dabbled in its workings to try out for a duration, placing my 'faith' in its ability to serve its purpose, little realizing Gamstop's security protocols are more porous than Swiss cheese. Though without that knowledge of its failings, I feel it did its job fairly well?

It's also somewhat suspect how casinos' outright refusal to close player accounts remains, so that when resorting to using Gamstop you're instantly tarnished as a problem gambler by the industry, so that the higher-ups can tick a box and feel better about doing a good deed, a purging of those pesky degenerates.

Funny then that all this time later the industry still deals in a duality of 'good gamblers' & 'bad gamblers' without so much as a hint of grey, when these gambling tools should all be optimized by now. Why has it not been?

Needless to say the whole industry's a convoluted mess that doesn't exactly embrace the casual player in to its bosom. So until Gamstop and its ilk create a seamless transition back into gambling, regulatory bodies start making positive and workable changes to slotting I won't hurry back to Bonanza and its 3-second-delayed wonderment anytime soon ?

 

[dec2008mcl]

Seems the industry has decreed Gamstop as the one-size-fits-all golden tourniquet which those non-industry serfs can use to make regulators and gambling companies feel better about themselves.

I dabbled in its workings to try out for a duration, placing my 'faith' in its ability to serve its purpose, little realizing Gamstop's security protocols are more porous than Swiss cheese. Though without that knowledge of its failings, I feel it did its job fairly well?

It's also somewhat suspect how casinos' outright refusal to close player accounts remains, so that when resorting to using Gamstop you're instantly tarnished as a problem gambler by the industry, so that the higher-ups can tick a box and feel better about doing a good deed, a purging of those pesky degenerates.

Funny then that all this time later the industry still deals in a duality of 'good gamblers' & 'bad gamblers' without so much as a hint of grey, when these gambling tools should all be optimized by now. Why has it not been?

Needless to say the whole industry's a convoluted mess that doesn't exactly embrace the casual player in to its bosom. So until Gamstop and its ilk create a seamless transition back into gambling, regulatory bodies start making positive and workable changes to slotting I won't hurry back to Bonanza and its 3-second-delayed wonderment anytime soon ?

I actually put around 600 spins through it today. 3 sniffs of the D, obvs to say none landed

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Seems the industry has decreed Gamstop as the one-size-fits-all golden tourniquet which those non-industry serfs can use to make regulators and gambling companies feel better about themselves.

I dabbled in its workings to try out for a duration, placing my 'faith' in its ability to serve its purpose, little realizing Gamstop's security protocols are more porous than Swiss cheese. Though without that knowledge of its failings, I feel it did its job fairly well?

It's also somewhat suspect how casinos' outright refusal to close player accounts remains, so that when resorting to using Gamstop you're instantly tarnished as a problem gambler by the industry, so that the higher-ups can tick a box and feel better about doing a good deed, a purging of those pesky degenerates.

Funny then that all this time later the industry still deals in a duality of 'good gamblers' & 'bad gamblers' without so much as a hint of grey, when these gambling tools should all be optimized by now. Why has it not been?

Needless to say the whole industry's a convoluted mess that doesn't exactly embrace the casual player in to its bosom. So until Gamstop and its ilk create a seamless transition back into gambling, regulatory bodies start making positive and workable changes to slotting I won't hurry back to Bonanza and its 3-second-delayed wonderment anytime soon ?

It’s funny in a way because the most likely problem gamblers are included in those that use no RG tools at all. The biggest problem gamblers are those that can’t admit they have an issue in the first place.

 

[goatwack]

It’s funny in a way because the most likely problem gamblers are included in those that use no RG tools at all. The biggest problem gamblers are those that can’t admit they have an issue in the first place.

I concur, I think it's somewhat naive to believe one's not addicted in some capacity, I think the severity differs person to person. That's not to say even minor addictions can't be managed through basic self-discipline among other things.....but in the case of Gamstop, it serves a limited, semi-useful purpose in taking most of the bad traits of gambling urges away, along with that autonomy.

Which in itself is an act of 'control', even if it's handed over, as it were

Yet even upon acknowledgement of said minor problem and addressing it, casinos essentially throw the book at you and mark everyone the same, which is sad in itself. Like being a wandering casino leper, if you will -

and that shit just don't look good

 

[nikfaz83]

Bryan and I discussed this at some length a few podcasts back. The bottom line is that Gamstop does the bare minimum necessary to claim that it helps stop problem gamblers from gambling. The caveat is that it works IF AND ONLY IF the player uses the same data -- with only very slight variance allowed -- when they register at a new casino as they used when they registered at Gamstop.

This is the 21st Century, that's simply lame. I wrote better search algorithms than that back in the 1980's. Things have progressed a little since then and I'm having a very difficult time trying to image how Gamstop can justify their algorithm as it currently stands.

I for one believe that if Gamstop is going to claim to help stop gamblers from gambling then they damn well need to try a little harder to do that. Catching a player's re-registration should be the norm regardless of variance in the user data, not the exception. Sure, if a player completely falsifies their info then Gamstop could obviously be excused for not catching it. But that is very, Very, VERY far from the case as things are with Gamstop today. I've talked to a lot of players with Gamstop complaints and the bottom line is that you can "beat" Gamstop without even trying to: it's not uncommon for it to happen accidentally. And this is an industry standard for blocking player re-registrations? I'm sorry but that's pathetic performance and it's about time people like us -- casino industry types -- made that clear.

This problem is now especially severe since the UKGC has adopted Gamstop as their solution to self-exclusion problems in the UK: UK-licensed casinos are supposed to enroll with Gamstop and rely on that as their primary tool to help players manage their self-exclusion issues. But if the tool is feeble -- and it is since people can "beat" Gamstop without even trying to do so -- then the "solution" is fundamentally flawed and the responsibility for that lies with both Gamstop and the UKGC. Until Gamstop is vastly more effective than it currently is at catching player re-registrations this whole thing is a bit of a farce.

I think the worst thing to have happened is direct bank transfers. I'm a gamstop user and have had several "slips" back in to gambling. Used fathers first name at my address. Direct bank transfers allow the bypass of debit card gambling block and allows you to deposit in any account. I've used my father's my mother's and also my wife's. People don't understand blocks are needed to prevent re-registration, stopping is difficult and all help is needed.

 

[thr0b]

I think the worst thing to have happened is direct bank transfers. I'm a gamstop user and have had several "slips" back in to gambling. Used fathers first name at my address. Direct bank transfers allow the bypass of debit card gambling block and allows you to deposit in any account. I've used my father's my mother's and also my wife's. People don't understand blocks are needed to prevent re-registration, stopping is difficult and all help is needed.

Some of the direct bank transfers do get recognised as gambling transactions and blocked - seems to depend on the provider the casino uses. Trustly is not one of the ones that blocks.

 

[ollygarch]

It looks as if GameStop hasn't protect your brother in the way you and he hoped. This seems to be because he has slightly different registered details. It is probably worth registering a complaint, but any on line site is quite likely to claim they didn't know he shouldn't be allowed to deposit let alone gamble. having said that I think William Hill are pretty reputable and asking them to be lenient may work better than jumping up and down in anger.

 

[Webzcas]

Gamstop is not infallible. I am registered with Gamstop and have been for many years now. If I wanted to get around it I could do.

So, to be further protected use an app such as BetBlocker in conjunction to signing up to the self exclusion service that operates in your country of residence. Sweden for example, the self exclusion service is Spelpaus.

@nikfaz83 check out BetBlocker here:

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

 

[jasonuk]

Firstly, the OP is from 3 years ago - bumped by a new member.

As Webzcas mentions, Gamstop can only do so much and if it's that serious than tools like Bet Blocker are available.

Things have evolved somewhat since the OP because operators must now verified your identity before you are allowed to play - so while this solves the issue of Mr B Smith -> Mr B Smithe "typos", it doesn't necessarily solve the more serious identity fraud scenarios where someone pretends to be a family member or friend.

It should also be mentioned that with the amount of self-exclusion fraud that was going on, most sites will now consider self-exclusion evasion as a terms and conditions breach which will forfeit the money. So if things are getting that bad - Bet Blocker as recommended above, or seek help from an approved source (see

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

)