Gamstop, operators refusing to re-open accounts when self-exclusion ends

[paul7388]

That is not it's purpose though to end gambling forever for problem gamblers. As we have seen there are easy ways round Gamstop, it is far from fool proof. The only way to stop fully is self exclude for life from each operator. Then with the new verification rules coming in May nobody can circumvent the process. Gamstop is a tool for everyone, not just problem gamblers.

Yes anyone can use it. But the main reason it was created was to help problem gamblers. The needing a cool of period etc. to calm gambling down as you are losing control or think you might not be able to save is still pointing towards a problem.

And i am not saying it is right. But casinos will start to look at the fact that anyone that needs to use Gamstop at all has some sort of problem with gambling. And with responsible gaming they might start deciding that it is better not to let them play at all.

 

[snorky510238]

With the high number of self excluders that do so and then try and circumvent the system, you can’t blame casinos if they think they are more hassle than they are worth. For one person that slips the system the casino could and probably would face a huge fine. Easier for them not to run the risk.

 

[Nik]

Players who use Gamstop or self exclusion at a certain casino as a preventing measure to “not get tempted” indicates that they can’t control themselves - therefore they are classed as problem gamblers.

You guys need to see the real issue here and finally put an end on such threads .

A person who clearly seeks entertainment by playing a casino wouldn’t get tempted to spend more than he/she can afford .

Calming down / cooling off periods are for those who don’t want to get tempted .... GAMSTOP / self exclusion is a different matter .

I know most affiliates here probably won’t like my answer but ... that’s the case unfortunately, and that’s why GAMSTOP was created.

By the way I think that the title of the thread should be changed as it might put off people who intend to use GAMSTOP , people who need help ! Think twice here , it might be worth it . Especially on a public forum like this .

At the end - We are all in the same boat

 

[interlog]

Players who use Gamstop or self exclusion at a certain casino as a preventing measure to “not get tempted” indicates that they can’t control themselves - therefore they are classed as problem gamblers.

You guys need to see the real issue here and finally put an end on such threads .

A person who clearly seeks entertainment by playing a casino wouldn’t get tempted to spend more than he/she can afford .

Calming down / cooling off periods are for those who don’t want to get tempted .... GAMSTOP / self exclusion is a different matter .

I know most affiliates here probably won’t like my answer but ... that’s the case unfortunately, and that’s why GAMSTOP was created.

By the way I think that the title of the thread should be changed as it might put off people who intend to use GAMSTOP , people who need help ! Think twice here , it might be worth it . Especially on a public forum like this .

At the end - We are all in the same boat

I ask you the same question as I asked others.... then why give the option to self exclude for 6 months or 12 months? If the purpose is to end the gambling addiction, than nothing but a life time exclusion will suffice?

Gamstop makes it easy to prevent you logging into ALL casinos, rather than go to each and every one of them. That was the purpose of Gamstop, a one stop solution.

Besides, I believe to get off the register once the set period has expired, you need to get in touch with Gamstop to get you off their database. And that is not an automatic process. I believe you need to call them and probably get the 3rd degree from them?

 

[zreb]

Do those who believe this should be permanent also believe that casinos shouldn't offer temporary self-exclusion? That anyone who truly needs the temporary exclusion does so because they can't trust themselves to control their gambling, and therefore shouldn't be gambling at all?

I can understand the logic, but I'm never a fan of the bait and switch. If someone signs up to a temporary solution for whatever reason, I don't think they should have someone else come and tell them what's best for them and that they can no longer play. Now - if you think that the service should only offer permanent self-exclusion to begin with, that's another question.

I do wonder more generally how effective self-exclusion systems are at helping problem gamblers. Is there any good statistical information that has been done on this, to prove that it actually lowers the rate of problem gambling? My intuition is that it may help the players with milder problems sometimes, but that the most strongly addicted are going to find another way to gamble - and they'll just end up doing so at less trustworthy places that don't honor the self-exclusions or care about responsible gambling. I'm not entirely convinced that self-exclusion (particularly permanent self-exclusion) doesn't actually worsen the problem in some cases, particularly with online casinos where a different casino is just a few clicks away.

 

[Nik]

I ask you the same question as I asked others.... then why give the option to self exclude for 6 months or 12 months? If the purpose is to end the gambling addiction, than nothing but a life time exclusion will suffice?

Gamstop makes it easy to prevent you logging into ALL casinos, rather than go to each and every one of them. That was the purpose of Gamstop, a one stop solution.

Besides, I believe to get off the register once the set period has expired, you need to get in touch with Gamstop to get you off their database. And that is not an automatic process. I believe you need to call them and probably get the 3rd degree from them?

Dear Interlog ,

As a Senior Member here I believe that you have fully understood my answer on the topic . I’ll still answer your question of course :

I’ll have to be rhetorical here: How many EX-Gamblers do you actually know in person ?
Not talking about the once that use the self-exclusion option in order to get back on their feet financially and come back “fully loaded” to end up destroying their life again .....

Can you see the point of GAMSTOP now ?

 

[colinsunderland]

With the high number of self excluders that do so and then try and circumvent the system, you can’t blame casinos if they think they are more hassle than they are worth. For one person that slips the system the casino could and probably would face a huge fine. Easier for them not to run the risk.

Surely never allowing someone to re-open an account is more likely to lead to people attempting to circumvent the system than allowing them to open it again at the end of the exclusion period?

 

[Playford7]

Just my honest opinion.
But if a person needs to stop via this method for whatever period of time it’s a gambling problem.
If you can’t trust yourself to save, or pay for what you need without using this method then clear you have zero control.
You can’t just say I’ll be unaddicted for 6 months then after that your no longer addicted, doesn’t work that way.
If you can’t manage your finances without tools such as this to prevent you spending what you don’t want to then perhaps it’s time to look for a new pastime.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but personal responsibility and choice are factors here.

 

[Nik]

Just my honest opinion.
But if a person needs to stop via this method for whatever period of time it’s a gambling problem.
If you can’t trust yourself to save, or pay for what you need without using this method then clear you have zero control.
You can’t just say I’ll be unaddicted for 6 months then after that your no longer addicted, doesn’t work that way.
If you can’t manage your finances without tools such as this to prevent you spending what you don’t want to then perhaps it’s time to look for a new pastime.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but personal responsibility and choice are factors here.

Absolutely spot on!!!

 

[interlog]

Just my honest opinion.
But if a person needs to stop via this method for whatever period of time it’s a gambling problem.
If you can’t trust yourself to save, or pay for what you need without using this method then clear you have zero control.
You can’t just say I’ll be unaddicted for 6 months then after that your no longer addicted, doesn’t work that way.
If you can’t manage your finances without tools such as this to prevent you spending what you don’t want to then perhaps it’s time to look for a new pastime.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but personal responsibility and choice are factors here.

So why have "take a break" options at a casino then? Are people that use that problem gamblers too? They can simply not log in right?

What about deposit limits? Are people that use it problem gamblers because they can't otherwise control their gambling?

Not everything is black and white.

 

[Nik]

On top of everything , we need to look at the bigger picture here this thread might create :

Problem gambler intending to use GAMSTOP does a research - Googles it! Then this thread on Casinomeister comes up ...

First he/she reads the title which straight away encourage him/her not to sign up to GAMSTOP because he/she will never be able to gamble again !!!?!?!?

What do you guys think ?
I wonder what GAMSTOP itself or the UKGC would think about this too ???

 

[interlog]

On top of everything , we need to look at the bigger picture here this thread might create :

Problem gambler intending to use GAMSTOP does a research - Googles it! Then this thread on Casinomeister comes up ...

First he/she reads the title which straight away encourage him/her not to sign up to GAMSTOP because he/she will never be able to gamble again !!!?!?!?

What do you guys think ?
I wonder what GAMSTOP itself or the UKGC would think about this too ???

Well if he really wants to stop, he would sign up because it appears you're going to have trouble reopening accounts!

 

[Tirilej]

Maybe having the 6 and 12 month can be good also for those that are afraid of taking the big step of 5 years. If they never get in contact with Gamstop then the exclusion will just be ongoing.
Sometime an addict are force to take this step of self excluding but after a while realize that it was a good idea. It's a tough battle for anyone.
I also understand casinos that are afraid of taking someone back. Earlier it wasn't such risk for them but it is now.

 

[Nik]

Well if he really wants to stop, he would sign up because it appears you're going to have trouble reopening accounts!

There is unfortunately a long way to go between “want to” and “did it” ....

 

[interlog]

There is unfortunately a long way to go between “want to” and “did it” ....

Well as has been said, if you really want to quit then you need the hunger to do it. Gamstop and other tools are an aid to help you with that.

Gamstop is an easy one stop tool to stop you logging into all of your casino accounts for a period of time.

Perhaps Gamstop should have another option available.... on the register forever. How about it?

 

[Nik]

Well as has been said, if you really want to quit then you need the hunger to do it. Gamstop and other tools are an aid to help you with that.

Gamstop is an easy one stop tool to stop you logging into all of your casino accounts for a period of time.

Perhaps Gamstop should have another option available.... on the register forever. How about it?

“Forever” is certainly a good option . Will have to advise them on this !

Makes me wonder why some casinos haven’t got the “permanent self exclusion option” available ?

 

[zreb]

Just my honest opinion.
But if a person needs to stop via this method for whatever period of time it’s a gambling problem.
If you can’t trust yourself to save, or pay for what you need without using this method then clear you have zero control.
You can’t just say I’ll be unaddicted for 6 months then after that your no longer addicted, doesn’t work that way.
If you can’t manage your finances without tools such as this to prevent you spending what you don’t want to then perhaps it’s time to look for a new pastime.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but personal responsibility and choice are factors here.

You may well be right, but I don't think many people succeed in overcoming their addictions unless it's a decision they've made for themselves.

If a person has not made the decision themselves for permanent self-exclusion, I'm not sure it's best to try to force it on them.

If it's someone you personally know, and you've seen them destroy their life with gambling (and possibly even hurt or taken from others to fuel their gambling), then maybe the situation is a little different - but usually that's still a situation with no easy answer.

 

[colinsunderland]

On top of everything , we need to look at the bigger picture here this thread might create :

Problem gambler intending to use GAMSTOP does a research - Googles it! Then this thread on Casinomeister comes up ...

First he/she reads the title which straight away encourage him/her not to sign up to GAMSTOP because he/she will never be able to gamble again !!!?!?!?

What do you guys think ?
I wonder what GAMSTOP itself or the UKGC would think about this too ???

What do you think they would think?
I see no reason to change the thread title, it's accurate. There are problems with Gamstop, if they read this then they should reach out to the player to find out whats gone wrong.

 

[Playford7]

So why have "take a break" options at a casino then? Are people that use that problem gamblers too? They can simply not log in right?

What about deposit limits? Are people that use it problem gamblers because they can't otherwise control their gambling?

Not everything is black and white.

I’d also ask why the ‘take a break’ is a option tbh mate. Again why have limits if you can’t control your spending?.. I mean why would you set a limit of you had no issues regarding your spending?.
Don’t get me wrong the tools available will probably help loads whom need them, but why would you need them anyway if your gambling wasn’t a problem?.

 

[Aryol]

I’d also ask why the ‘take a break’ is a option tbh mate. Again why have limits if you can’t control your spending?.. I mean why would you set a limit of you had no issues regarding your spending?.
Don’t get me wrong the tools available will probably help loads whom need them, but why would you need them anyway if your gambling wasn’t a problem?.

Nearly every player is a problem gambler. But there are different stages, ... but I would not discuss this now. More important I want give you a answer to your question:

The tools are for problem gamblers who know that they have problems but still want to play.

 

[Playford7]

Nearly every player is a problem gambler. But there are different stages, ... but I would not discuss this now. More important I want give you a answer to your question:

The tools are for problem gamblers who know that they have problems but still want to play.

So Tools are in place to manage those with a gambling problem?. This meaning any casino that uses them must know anyone whom uses such ways to stop or halt gambling does indeed have a problem with how they spend the money they have...
You can’t have a part time addiction.
‘Know you have a problem but still want to play’ What???... so that’s acknowledged you have a gambling issue.
The whole thing isn’t fit for purpose, it’s actually lauhable, no wonder we see almost daily the self exclusion threads on here.

 

[interlog]

So Tools are in place to manage those with a gambling problem?. This meaning any casino that uses them must know anyone whom uses such ways to stop or halt gambling does indeed have a problem with how they spend the money they have...
You can’t have a part time addiction.
‘Know you have a problem but still want to play’ What???... so that’s acknowledged you have a gambling issue.
The whole thing isn’t fit for purpose, it’s actually lauhable, no wonder we see almost daily the self exclusion threads on here.

Because there is always the temptation. There was uproar about the take a break option at 32 Red when they tinkered with it a few years ago and it made it more difficult for the players to use that option. Rizk was applauded for having the lock withdrawal option available that stops people reversing withdrawals whilst they are being processed.

When people want to take a break from gambling for a period of time, it surely is a good thing to have these tools available to them. Gamstop is such a tool as it the one way stop to block all of your casino accounts for a period of time. You actively have to get you off the register, it is no automatic process.

I personally haven't missed gambling at all since I used Gamstop at the end of May. I have missed the streaming that I did, but that is about it. But I used Gamstop with the understanding that after a year, if I want to, I can contact them, get off the register and then start playing again at casinos. I don't expect to have to go through all the hassle with casinos to get accounts reopened. And the latter is what the OP is experiencing so I fully understand where they are coming from.

 

[Steviedoo]

Nearly every player is a problem gambler. But there are different stages, ... but I would not discuss this now. More important I want give you a answer to your question:

The tools are for problem gamblers who know that they have problems but still want to play.

What are the stages?

 

[Halvor]

First time poster on this account. For those that remember me, kindly note that I do not currently work for any operator, and my views are my own and my own only. Now that's out of the way:

That's up to the casinos to sort out though. I'm sure they will eventually figure it out when their profits are down

Although I do understand both yours and Interlog's point of view. Also keep in mind that online casinos, just like other businesses do have the right to refuse their services to customers. "profits are down" is a none starter here. If a casino decides to keep an account closed, its done out of concern for the customers control of their gambling, not because the casino feels like losing money.

Surely never allowing someone to re-open an account is more likely to lead to people attempting to circumvent the system than allowing them to open it again at the end of the exclusion period?

If not reopening a customers account, leads to them intentionally attempting to circumvent the block. Then surely the casino were correct in keeping it closed in the first place?

I’d also ask why the ‘take a break’ is a option tbh mate. Again why have limits if you can’t control your spending?.. I mean why would you set a limit of you had no issues regarding your spending?.
Don’t get me wrong the tools available will probably help loads whom need them, but why would you need them anyway if your gambling wasn’t a problem?.

I strongly disagree.

A player deciding they want to have a deposit limit, take a break or similar is not by itself an indication of not being able to control your spending. If anything I would argue that setting deposit limits strongly indicates you are able to control yourself, but want the extra security.

Nearly every player is a problem gambler. But there are different stages, ... but I would not discuss this now. More important I want give you a answer to your question:

The tools are for problem gamblers who know that they have problems but still want to play.

I would love to see some research supporting your claim that nearly all players have a gambling problem, as this simply goes against all research I've seen. And certainly against my experience as a player and from the industry.

No GamStop is not only for problem gamblers. That do however not mean that casinos are in any way or shape required to reopen an account in cases where they are concerned for the players well being.

 

[trancemonkey]

First time poster on this account. For those that remember me, kindly note that I do not currently work for any operator, and my views are my own and my own only. Now that's out of the way:



Although I do understand both yours and Interlog's point of view. Also keep in mind that online casinos, just like other businesses do have the right to refuse their services to customers. "profits are down" is a none starter here. If a casino decides to keep an account closed, its done out of concern for the customers control of their gambling, not because the casino feels like losing money.



If not reopening a customers account, leads to them intentionally attempting to circumvent the block. Then surely the casino were correct in keeping it closed in the first place?



I strongly disagree.

A player deciding they want to have a deposit limit, take a break or similar is not by itself an indication of not being able to control your spending. If anything I would argue that setting deposit limits strongly indicates you are able to control yourself, but want the extra security.



I would love to see some research supporting your claim that nearly all players have a gambling problem, as this simply goes against all research I've seen. And certainly against my experience as a player and from the industry.

No GamStop is not only for problem gamblers. That do however not mean that casinos are in any way or shape required to reopen an account in cases where they are concerned for the players well being.

Well said, you summed up my thoughts.... especially those towards Playford7, who somehow seems to think that any player that uses any form of control to limit their gambling is a problem gambler, which is quite clearly untrue.