GamStop excluded but allowed to deposit £2600

[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.

)