Gamstop - Many Problems After Exclusion Ends

slot_zombie

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Location
UK
Not true especially with the larger casinos. Once they do their verification on their side and it passes withdrawals are automatically allowed. Perhaps the smaller operators but you can't say all.
Right so that verification would "pass" how exactly? If you can't verify your name and address (which you can't, if it's not accurate), it's not happening.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Right so that verification would "pass" how exactly? If you can't verify your name and address (which you can't, if it's not accurate), it's not happening.
Date of Birth is one. The overall verification checks age and not the specific date. Gamstop checks for the exact date. So you could have wrong DOB and email address which would throw Gamstop out but allow verification.
 

pmhcfc

Experienced Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Location
UK
Date of Birth is one. The overall verification checks age and not the specific date. Gamstop checks for the exact date. So you could have wrong DOB and email address which would throw Gamstop out but allow verification.
Are you saying put your date of birth different when you sign up to a casino? You would not be able to withdraw as they would check against your documents.

But if you're saying put wrong date of birth when you sign up at Gamstop, what's the point of signing up anyway?
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Are you saying put your date of birth different when you sign up to a casino? You would not be able to withdraw as they would check against your documents.

But if you're saying put wrong date of birth when you sign up at Gamstop, what's the point of signing up anyway?
Not strictly true, the bigger companies do automated verification on age so they would not pick up a different DOB. This is a potential flaw and has been used according to Gamstop.
 

irish-ranger

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Sep 1, 2018
Location
United Kingdom
All the guff in the press this weekend about being able to alter your details and successfully sign up to new sites... Yes, journalists have been able to do this, as a "theoretical test" (with no intention of actually gambling), but no gambler would. They know right well that their details have to match exactly what they signed up with at verification time, otherwise no withdrawals!
Unfortunately that's not true say a punter under exclusion via Gamstop decides to register with a casino as a new customer and they confirm they haven't previously signed up to any sister casinos.
That person gives a completely new email address and also puts a wrong digit on his DOB.
He then starts playing attempts a cash out but gets KYCd and the wrong DOB is picked up punter tells them this was a mistake and withdrew is processed.
3minths down the line punter is still playing and making regular cash outs .
This is exactly what the European broadcasting corporation sorry British Broadcasting Corporation was going on about.
 

slot_zombie

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Location
UK
Unfortunately that's not true say a punter under exclusion via Gamstop decides to register with a casino as a new customer and they confirm they haven't previously signed up to any sister casinos.
That person gives a completely new email address and also puts a wrong digit on his DOB.
He then starts playing attempts a cash out but gets KYCd and the wrong DOB is picked up punter tells them this was a mistake and withdrew is processed.
3minths down the line punter is still playing and making regular cash outs .
This is exactly what the European broadcasting corporation sorry British Broadcasting Corporation was going on about.
All sounds very dodgy and risky to me. If they then correct that "DOB mistake", you're busted?
 

Vibroverb

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Location
Europe
The self-excluded players pose a risk to the casinos, because if you're registered there and you have had a problem with gambling in the past, the Casino has to be aware that you are a player that may not have a problem anymore, but could have one at anytime again. As with anything, fraudulent players are trying to exploit gamstop and self-excluded players in the UK massively, at a certain point, it becomes too much of a headache as the casinos don't have the manpower to sift through which players actually have a problem and which don't. All of them are asking for their deposits back and all of them are accusing you of letting them play, even though they were registered with gamstop
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
The self-excluded players pose a risk to the casinos, because if you're registered there and you have had a problem with gambling in the past, the Casino has to be aware that you are a player that may not have a problem anymore, but could have one at anytime again. As with anything, fraudulent players are trying to exploit gamstop and self-excluded players in the UK massively, at a certain point, it becomes too much of a headache as the casinos don't have the manpower to sift through which players actually have a problem and which don't. All of them are asking for their deposits back and all of them are accusing you of letting them play, even though they were registered with gamstop
I strongly disagree with the above. Self exclusion is a two way street. You can't just say...ahh the casino don't have the manpower or means to bother so 100% responsibility sits with the player. Especially with players with serious addictions to gambling, they will always exploit that and the casinos have to take more responsibility in dealing with them. In fairness some have done so but some have not. As mentioned on another thread, the UKGC can automatically wipe out any grey area on exclusions by clearly defining what has to occur from the casino side. They could say "any excluded player found has to have money returned", overnight casinos would act. Colinsunderland needs to take credit for that post in the thread. Are the UKGC brave enough??
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top