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

[CasinoNinja]

So if I have deposit limits put on my account you call me a problem gambler? It's called a responsible gambler more than anything. Gamble with only funds you can afford to lose and putting limits on your account is a great tool to help you do this so you don't go overboard.

Do you never budget? I would say its the same way, just put a limit on the spending and you know you won't go over your budget.
Same could be said for having a break for 6 months, you know you are saving for something or whatever and you self exclude for 6 months, not because you might have gambled all that potential money away but you have the ease of mind that you won't be able to, should you attempt to do it.

 

[Aryol]

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.

I want to clarify my view, I look at this like any other addiction. The base of them is mostly the endorphins while gambling / ... this is also the reason some player increasing their stake for a "better" feeling. And the UKGC made a health report (2016) and identified 0.7 % of the English population / 1.2 % of gamblers as problem gamblers. Of course, their numbers are not wrong, if we get deeper into the report we can even tell that every tenth man has a little gambling problem (womens tend to play more careful).

But still, I stay to my statement that nearly all or at least a big part has gambling problems. They can be really small and are not being identified as a problem. But when someone deposits 20 € and he initially wanted deposit 10 €, then this is a problem gambler - even if he is not at the same stage with someone who gambled his house away (this is my view!)

I am honest, I see myself as a problem gambler. Never in debt, can pay my bills and have enough for good food and weekend trips. Still I deposit 2-3 times in a row if nothing comes, I do not believe that this is the behaviour I would have in my early days. Earlier I deposited 5 € and 20 € was a jackpot for me. I only know a few people who still deposit low amounts, many raised it at least to 20 € deposits.

Some can hold it down better and maybe never stake over 0,40 € per spin. And other players raising it pretty fast to 1-2 € per spin. And then real crazy ones playing 20+ € per spin...

 

[trancemonkey]

What Is Problem Gambling

Not all people who gamble excessively are alike, nor are the problems they face. People with gambling problems are found in all age groups, income groups, cultures and jobs. Some people develop gambling problems suddenly, others over many years.

There are many reasons why a gambling problem may develop. For example, some people develop problems when they try to win back money they have lost, or because they like to be “in the action.” Others have many life stresses that make gambling a welcome relief.

Problem gambling is not just about losing money. Gambling problems can affect a person’s whole life.
Gambling is a problem when it:

• Gets in the way of work, school or other activities
• Harms your mental or physical health
• Hurts you financially
• Damages your reputation
• Causes problems with your family or friends

I don't think depositing 20 instead of 10 is a definition of a problem gambler, unless that extra 10 causes them financial problems.
If i deposit 10 quid in to Betfair, bet on Birmingham City - and they lose. So i deposit another tenner (which i didn't WANT to do, cos i hoped they would win) you're suggesting that makes me a problem gambler? That's just ridiculous...

 

[Halvor]

I don't think depositing 20 instead of 10 is a definition of a problem gambler, unless that extra 10 causes them financial problems.
If i deposit 10 quid in to Betfair, bet on Birmingham City - and they lose. So i deposit another tenner (which i didn't WANT to do, cos i hoped they would win) you're suggesting that makes me a problem gambler? That's just ridiculous...

Exactly. Just as bet sizes cant be used to determine if someone got a gambling issue.

Player A might have a budget that justifies betting €0.20 per spin. While for player Crazy a €20 bet per spin actually have less of an impact on their life and finances.

 

[Borgie]

FREE ONLINE SELF-EXCLUSION
GAMSTOP lets you put controls in place to restrict your online gambling activities.

You will be prevented from using gambling websites and apps run by companies licensed in Great Britain, for a period of your choosing.

This is what Gamstop says so surely this is what it should do no more no less ?

 

[trancemonkey]

FREE ONLINE SELF-EXCLUSION
GAMSTOP lets you put controls in place to restrict your online gambling activities.

You will be prevented from using gambling websites and apps run by companies licensed in Great Britain, for a period of your choosing.

This is what Gamstop says so surely this is what it should do no more no less ?

Half of this thread makes no sense - and is going around in circles.
GamStop is NOT permanent. It's for 6 months, 1 year or 5 years currently, i believe.
If a player is having a problem with GamStop, they should contact GamStop. Simple as that.
There is clearly an error somewhere either with the GamStop system, or Virgin.
As someone else quite rightly pointed out, has the OP tried any other accounts with other groups? That would likely show where the fault was.
Going round in circles making false accusations about what GamStop is / isn't benefits no-one.

There really isn't much to discuss here over and above what has been said.

 

[trancemonkey]

Exactly. Just as bet sizes cant be used to determine if someone got a gambling issue.

Player A might have a budget that justifies betting €0.20 per spin. While for player Crazy a €20 bet per spin actually have less of an impact on their life and finances.

Changes in Bet Size can... but agree, normal bet sizes can't.

 

[Halvor]

Changes in Bet Size can... but agree, normal bet sizes can't.

Yes of course, a player betting €0.10 one day and €5 is obviously a potential problem.

To clarify, a customer gradually over years going from lets say a €0.10 bet to €1 bet. Can alone not be used as an indicator

 

[goatwack]

Gamstop is a last resort for self-admitted problem gamblers, though it ought to really be called Gamstop Lite for all the good it does. Using it is like witnessing a game of Chinese Whispers, player requests one thing, casinos half-arsedly implement the info, and the end result is something quite different

I agree most have some form of gambling 'issues', but the likes of Deposit Limits & TABs I see more as impulse controls. But the fact remains that a player SEing across the board and thinking they're cured via Gamstop, then actively hunting down any type of casino that'll have 'em, needs to take accountability

 

[mack341]

I don't think depositing 20 instead of 10 is a definition of a problem gambler, unless that extra 10 causes them financial problems.
If i deposit 10 quid in to Betfair, bet on Birmingham City - and they lose. So i deposit another tenner (which i didn't WANT to do, cos i hoped they would win) you're suggesting that makes me a problem gambler? That's just ridiculous...

I agree, but who was suggesting this? It's been a bit tricky following this thread, kind of see both sides to the argument but to be successful, Gamstop has to got to have a flexible approach and be for use by anybody not just those seeking to stop permanently. I suppose casinos are frightened of fines though for having any potential problem gamblers using their products

Edit: no need to answer now, just seen it was in aryol's post. I suppose it could be the beginning of problems but no one's got such an iron will that they won't be tempted to do an extra £10 bet, it's too high a standard for a definition of a problem gambler.

 

[Aryol]

What Is Problem Gambling

Not all people who gamble excessively are alike, nor are the problems they face. People with gambling problems are found in all age groups, income groups, cultures and jobs. Some people develop gambling problems suddenly, others over many years.

There are many reasons why a gambling problem may develop. For example, some people develop problems when they try to win back money they have lost, or because they like to be “in the action.” Others have many life stresses that make gambling a welcome relief.

Problem gambling is not just about losing money. Gambling problems can affect a person’s whole life.
Gambling is a problem when it:

• Gets in the way of work, school or other activities
• Harms your mental or physical health
• Hurts you financially
• Damages your reputation
• Causes problems with your family or friends

I don't think depositing 20 instead of 10 is a definition of a problem gambler, unless that extra 10 causes them financial problems.
If i deposit 10 quid in to Betfair, bet on Birmingham City - and they lose. So i deposit another tenner (which i didn't WANT to do, cos i hoped they would win) you're suggesting that makes me a problem gambler? That's just ridiculous...

It was one example and the message was not the "extra 10", the message was that the gambler initially wanted to spend a lower amount. And writing headlines in big red makes you not more important.

And it was also the increase of stake over time, not just 0,1 € or 1,0 €. This is how addictions ... but you can make a nice red post to that topic too

 

[mack341]

I want to clarify my view, I look at this like any other addiction. The base of them is mostly the endorphins while gambling / ... this is also the reason some player increasing their stake for a "better" feeling. And the UKGC made a health report (2016) and identified 0.7 % of the English population / 1.2 % of gamblers as problem gamblers. Of course, their numbers are not wrong, if we get deeper into the report we can even tell that every tenth man has a little gambling problem (womens tend to play more careful).

But still, I stay to my statement that nearly all or at least a big part has gambling problems. They can be really small and are not being identified as a problem. But when someone deposits 20 € and he initially wanted deposit 10 €, then this is a problem gambler - even if he is not at the same stage with someone who gambled his house away (this is my view!)

I am honest, I see myself as a problem gambler. Never in debt, can pay my bills and have enough for good food and weekend trips. Still I deposit 2-3 times in a row if nothing comes, I do not believe that this is the behaviour I would have in my early days. Earlier I deposited 5 € and 20 € was a jackpot for me. I only know a few people who still deposit low amounts, many raised it at least to 20 € deposits.

Some can hold it down better and maybe never stake over 0,40 € per spin. And other players raising it pretty fast to 1-2 € per spin. And then real crazy ones playing 20+ € per spin...

I agree that a person's gambling behaviour tends to change with time, getting more involved, longer time playing, possibly higher stakes, more redepositing etc...

"Earlier I deposited 5 € and 20 € was a jackpot for me."

totally agree, was thinking this myself the other day, was on cloud nine winning £10 a few years ago but now its just more grist to the mill for playing on longer and trying to win a higher amount. I still play at minimum stakes but not sure this is always the sensible thing to do as you do end up playing longer but have less chance of winning something large enough to be worthwhile withdrawing.

 

[trancemonkey]

It was one example and the message was not the "extra 10", the message was that the gambler initially wanted to spend a lower amount. And writing headlines in big red makes you not more important.

And it was also the increase of stake over time, not just 0,1 € or 1,0 €. This is how addictions ... but you can make a nice red post to that topic too

It was in red as it was a quote. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Aryol]

It was in red as it was a quote. Nothing more nothing less.

Then I am sorry for attacking you on this point. I just know some people using red colors to make it look important and I expected a Quote in "" or in a box, so this was something new for me.

 

[trancemonkey]

Then I am sorry for attacking you on this point. I just know some people using red colors to make it look important and I expected a Quote in "" or in a box, so this was something new for me.

Well, I copied it as was from a website. So the format was like that

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

. I changed it to red to make it different to my comment underneath. I certainly don't need to make what I say look more important... it already is super important anyway.

 

[dionysus]

I certainly don't need to make what I say look more important... it already is super important anyway.

you misspelled impotent

 

[TheAddict]

this thread is ceartinly quite a read. just went through it, and as someone who opened it late and consumed all the information at once, i think i can summarise it as;


Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.

;p

was thinking this myself the other day, was on cloud nine winning £10 a few years ago but now its just more grist to the mill for playing on longer and trying to win a higher amount. i still plat at minimum stakes..

not even enough for 20 B&H Gold smokes these days, would have to settle for B&H blue or take the gamble..
aren't taxes and inflation the most beautiful of gifts ;p

agree with the feeling though, and is one reason i still only play min bets online, as i don't want to become used to higher stakes and the buzz of seeing bigger hits when online, only to become bored if going back to lower stakes and so possibly spending more on average in the long run.


Anyway, please excuse my daily irrelevant contribution. i can agree with most comments here to some extent fwiw.

 

[mac72]

I don’t think wanting to exclude for a period of time after which you wish to return is any sign of addiction at all. Various things happen in people’s lives , death of a loved one, separation/divorce or loss of a job when your “hobby” is probably not a good idea for a while. Gambling can be a way to remove yourself from your problems and as such can be dangerous during periods like these and if you realise that these are all useful tools. You just accept your in a place in your life where gambling/drinking etc are not a good idea at that time but you know the “danger period” will pass with time . Just my thoughts on the subject

 

[zreb]

I still play at minimum stakes but not sure this is always the sensible thing to do as you do end up playing longer but have less chance of winning something large enough to be worthwhile withdrawing.

It really depends what your goal is, play time or a chance to win big? If you want play time, smaller bets are better. Chance to come out with a big win ahead of the casino, big bets are better - but you have to prepared to lose your deposit fast if luck isn't on your side.

Due to that last part, bigger bets are harder to responsibly manage. If your discipline slips, big bets just mean you are spending money at a faster rate (since the casino always has the advantage, whether you bet big or small), and you may lose more than you originally planned to - in the worse cases, enough for someone to harm their financial health.

Most are probably better off with small bets, even if that means you will never in your lifetime hit that $10,000+ miracle win. It's easier not to chase losses if you lose your deposit over an hour instead of 5 minutes. Though as others in this thread have said, they find it hard to go back to small bets once they've gotten used to the big ones. So in the long term, those big bets don't really become a chance to hit that big win and run off as a winner - they just become bigger deposits. So bigger wins once in a while, but bigger losses in total.

But everyone is different and has to find their own preferences and their own balance. Some people just enjoy the experience of playing the games and are quite happy with a $25-$50 win, some would rather take big risks to go for those $1000+ scores. Some want a relaxing hour in front of the slots, some want to win big and they want it right now.

If you feel the need to push towards higher stakes and bigger wins to get the same thrill and enjoyment from the slots that you once did, I'd recommend to try taking a break for a week or two, come back, and try playing the smaller stakes again/calling it a day with a more modest win. I can't say it works for everyone, but it's usually worked for me (usually cutting back after a big loss or string of losses).

 

[mack341]

It really depends what your goal is, play time or a chance to win big? If you want play time, smaller bets are better. Chance to come out with a big win ahead of the casino, big bets are better - but you have to prepared to lose your deposit fast if luck isn't on your side.

Due to that last part, bigger bets are harder to responsibly manage. If your discipline slips, big bets just mean you are spending money at a faster rate (since the casino always has the advantage, whether you bet big or small), and you may lose more than you originally planned to - in the worse cases, enough for someone to harm their financial health.

Most are probably better off with small bets, even if that means you will never in your lifetime hit that $10,000+ miracle win. It's easier not to chase losses if you lose your deposit over an hour instead of 5 minutes. Though as others in this thread have said, they find it hard to go back to small bets once they've gotten used to the big ones. So in the long term, those big bets don't really become a chance to hit that big win and run off as a winner - they just become bigger deposits. So bigger wins once in a while, but bigger losses in total.

But everyone is different and has to find their own preferences and their own balance. Some people just enjoy the experience of playing the games and are quite happy with a $25-$50 win, some would rather take big risks to go for those $1000+ scores. Some want a relaxing hour in front of the slots, some want to win big and they want it right now.

If you feel the need to push towards higher stakes and bigger wins to get the same thrill and enjoyment from the slots that you once did, I'd recommend to try taking a break for a week or two, come back, and try playing the smaller stakes again/calling it a day with a more modest win. I can't say it works for everyone, but it's usually worked for me (usually cutting back after a big loss or string of losses).

Thanks Zreb that's sound advice all round, and the psychology is a big part of sensible slotting; I've realised a bit late in the day that actually for my bankroll and outlook 40p is high stakes and can rinse you of £200+ for not much back in terms of entertainment or wins

I get caught up chasing losses, redepositing etc.. and trying to get, at least, a break even session, but accepting a loss is more sensible, darn hard to do but over the long run will save me money.

 

[trancemonkey]

Thanks Zreb that's sound advice all round, and the psychology is a big part of sensible slotting; I've realised a bit late in the day that actually for my bankroll and outlook 40p is high stakes and can rinse you of £200+ for not much back in terms of entertainment or wins

I get caught up chasing losses, redepositing etc.. and trying to get, at least, a break even session, but accepting a loss is more sensible, darn hard to do but over the long run will save me money.

Chasing losses is a prime example of a bad gambling addiction... be careful.

 

[mack341]

Chasing losses is a prime example of a bad gambling addiction... be careful.

I must admit I do do it, but at a certain point my sensible mindset kicks back in and says 'that's enough', and at the stakes I tend to play 20/40p- there's only so much you can lose in say 5 hours . But I do need to sort this out as it's a slippery slope to self inflicted penury.

 

[Playford7]

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.

Why use a tool to prevent you gambling If gambling wasn’t a problem in the first place..
Simple dimples pal

 

[Tirilej]

Why use a tool to prevent you gambling If gambling wasn’t a problem in the first place..
Simple dimples pal

To prevent it from becoming a problem of course. Simple

 

[dionysus]

I guess you could look at it like a condom. It's a preventative measure, not always 100% but nice to have Doesnt mean I have an issue with STDs or spitting out babies - but I'd like to help make sure I don't

 

[goatwack]

I guess you could look at it like a condom. It's a preventative measure, not always 100% but nice to have Doesnt mean I have an issue with STDs or spitting out babies - but I'd like to help make sure I don't

Good analogy. Like this guy - he's simply protecting his head (his actual head)

 

[DreamRJ]

As a late comer to this thread. I for sure know one thing. I will certainly not be using GamStop I read so many stories about their failing systems. There was one a few months ago as well that was on BBC breakfast news as well. There was a thread about it too.

This is just another prime example in my opinion that they need to totally go through all their systems and double and triple check all the code and systems are totally 100% working.

As far as I am concerned I agree and disagree that GamStop should be the last option to help problem gamblers stop, full stop. But Life is short. Sometime in the future they still might want to gamble again. And if at that time all online casinos are then signed up and use GamStop services it would basically make it impossible for anyone who used to be registered then de registered on GamStop to be able to login to their old online casino accounts even if years passed after they got de registered from the GamStop website systems.

Yes I can confirm that I have on a few occasions ran into issues where some casinos refused to reopen some of my accounts. Not because I self excluded. More so it was what I sometimes said in live chats about losing streaks that would not end. Mr Green was one of them. Unibet was another, the other was Paddy power. I tried on numerous occasions to ask them to reopen my accounts and every single time they will not do it lol. I did how ever have a similar situation with Vera And John. They too closed my account and refused to reopen it as well for nearly 2 years, and again that was not self exclusion either. But after me keep trying every 3-4 months they did eventually reopen it for me.

I have however Self Excluded myself from Skyvegas casino over 3 and a half years ago. So in 2020. I can hopefully play there again. it still lets me login and it comes up with the self exclusion end Date. And it says 2020. I just hope that Skyvegas will let me go back there too. As Skyvegas was actually the site I played at as my number 1 place before switched to VS casino. Reason I did it at Skyvegas was well. Lets just say I had some crazy crazy bad winning streaks. Then my stakes went crazy, ended up doing some crazy bets and losing what I won in the space of a few days. So hence it was not because I had a problem. Cos I didn't. It was merely to protect my sanity. I love gambling. I know it can be good and bad. And I am 100% happy with what I spend and how much I lose. Life is too short. We should enjoy what we can while we are alive on this earth. This is the pass time that I enjoy. So I will do it until the day I die.

That is my 2 cents anyway. Yet another long post from me today, sorry to all off you that bother to even try and read it before falling asleeeppppppppppppppppp ........................ zZZzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzZzzzzzzzz hahaha

 

[mack341]

As a late comer to this thread. I for sure know one thing. I will certainly not be using GamStop I read so many stories about their failing systems. There was one a few months ago as well that was on BBC breakfast news as well. There was a thread about it too.

This is just another prime example in my opinion that they need to totally go through all their systems and double and triple check all the code and systems are totally 100% working.

As far as I am concerned I agree and disagree that GamStop should be the last option to help problem gamblers stop, full stop. But Life is short. Sometime in the future they still might want to gamble again. And if at that time all online casinos are then signed up and use GamStop services it would basically make it impossible for anyone who used to be registered then de registered on GamStop to be able to login to their old online casino accounts even if years passed after they got de registered from the GamStop website systems.

Yes I can confirm that I have on a few occasions ran into issues where some casinos refused to reopen some of my accounts. Not because I self excluded. More so it was what I sometimes said in live chats about losing streaks that would not end. Mr Green was one of them. Unibet was another, the other was Paddy power. I tried on numerous occasions to ask them to reopen my accounts and every single time they will not do it lol. I did how ever have a similar situation with Vera And John. They too closed my account and refused to reopen it as well for nearly 2 years, and again that was not self exclusion either. But after me keep trying every 3-4 months they did eventually reopen it for me.

I have however Self Excluded myself from Skyvegas casino over 3 and a half years ago. So in 2020. I can hopefully play there again. it still lets me login and it comes up with the self exclusion end Date. And it says 2020. I just hope that Skyvegas will let me go back there too. As Skyvegas was actually the site I played at as my number 1 place before switched to VS casino. Reason I did it at Skyvegas was well. Lets just say I had some crazy crazy bad winning streaks. Then my stakes went crazy, ended up doing some crazy bets and losing what I won in the space of a few days. So hence it was not because I had a problem. Cos I didn't. It was merely to protect my sanity. I love gambling. I know it can be good and bad. And I am 100% happy with what I spend and how much I lose. Life is too short. We should enjoy what we can while we are alive on this earth. This is the pass time that I enjoy. So I will do it until the day I die.

That is my 2 cents anyway. Yet another long post from me today, sorry to all off you that bother to even try and read it before falling asleeeppppppppppppppppp ........................ zZZzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzZzzzzzzzz hahaha

funny enough skyvegas is probably my worse site too for overall losses, something about their slots, just seem a bit tighter...

 

[DreamRJ]

funny enough skyvegas is probably my worse site too for overall losses, something about their slots, just seem a bit tighter...

It has got nothing to do with the casino that host the slots lol. All slots are on the slot providers servers. All the casinos do is host the slots by paying license fees to host them. All casino operators can do is have a choice of what RTP version of each slot they want to host. Each slot provider usually has 3 levels of RTP. The most reputable casinos always pick the highest RTP they can. VS always pick the highest RTP for example.

It then also comes down to countries as well. Some countries have far more relaxed rules and is more of a wild west, those countries casinos can choose to geo target customers accounts based on the country and they can also then have the RTP for those countries at a different RTP than what they would do for say for example the UK which have much stricter rules.

So say for example a casino called slotsnuts made up name by me by the way as an example. Chose to pay for a license to host slots from Play N Go slot provider. They then login the operator admin pages for the slot provider and select which slots they would like to host. Then they implement if they use Geo location or not at their end. They might also need to talk to play n go directly to implement some extra geo location rules etc etc, as some slot providers might not allow slots to be RTP Geo Targeted. So they then set country of say Island DreamRJ Wild west to RTP setting of 84% and country UK to 96% RTP the highest RTP they can select per slot selected.

I am not sure what is legally the lowest RTP by global laws is or is allowed to be though. But that gives you an idea of how it kinda works

Skyvegas was a great casino. Withdraws was super fast as well. I usually had withdraws within an hour. Even bank withdraws was within 1 day too. But I mainly used ewallets to deposit there. But I did also use bank deposits and withdraws sometimes. They use the BACS system or faster payments system for withdraws to bank accounts in the UK. So in some cases you can get them the same day you requested it. depends what time of day it is and what bank you use.

Also they do have slots that most other casinos do not have as well. I am actually hopefully looking forward to playing at skyvegas again in 2020. To see what has changed and what new slots there are. I am sure there will be plenty of new ones that other casinos I play at do not have but Sky Vegas do have. They do have a hell of a lot of exclusive slots

 

[pinnit2014]

funny enough skyvegas is probably my worse site too for overall losses, something about their slots, just seem a bit tighter...

But more than made up by all those 10 and 50p scratchcard prizes from their Prize Machine

 

[trancemonkey]

Why use a tool to prevent you gambling If gambling wasn’t a problem in the first place..
Simple dimples pal

I guess you are the kind of guy that's turns all the safety equipment in your car then right? I mean, why have all the safety equipment if you're such a perfect driver.

 

[Slottery]

Some casinos (as somebody mentioned earlier) have made a business decision not to take back self-excluded players at all and in their site only offer a permanent option and time outs on their site where is explained that SE is only meant to use when you want to permanently stop gambling because it causing problems to you. Maybe Gamstop should mention that in their site that casinos are not required to take the player back even period is over..... It really can cause the casino more risk than profit so saying no is more safe option from their point of view.

Should Gamstop then start to do SOW to all after period is over and implement nationwide limit that you in total can't deposit licensed casinos more than XXX? There is no easy or probably even possible way to stop problem gambler from playing somewhere (poker in local pub with friends if nothing else), if somebody solve that problem, it would be really remarkable

I understand casinos as well that they can choose their customer and if they think that risk is bigger than profit, why bother, it's business anyway and all casinos make their own decisions. Limits are ok (yes, you can play another site, but casinos want to save their own arse), you can be impulsive, drunk or just want to budget your playing without counting yourself how much money or time you use. Timeouts are there if you want to have a little break for mentioned reasons like you have something coming up and don't want to spend money or time for playing (yes, mentioned here that it's sign about problem gambling). As we see from this topic, there is no silver bullet to solve this issue....

 

[Uncleduck]

I took a 6 month self exclusion with gamstop and I have been permanently banned from a few major bookies (Bet365, paddypower, Ladbrokes) others have reopened or let me create new accounts including (sport nation, William Hill, bet fair and skybet) I haven't tried everything.
At first I was extremely frustrated especially given that I signed up for a 6 month self exclusion which should be just that. I think fair warning should be given about the situation by Gamstop.

I'm my case however, after coming back from the self exclusion I have to be completely honest with myself and admit that I don't have too much control.

I've been back only a few days and went on a roller-coaster up and down with my savings. Fortunately and it is fortunate, I decided to put one last bet on that would recuperate my losses (and win me a bit more) I promised myself that if it won I would activate my self exclusion again but for a year this time, which I have.

Even though for someone like me I think it's probably for the best. The decision still shouldn't be taken out of your hands when you believe it would be 6 months. Lifetime is quite an extension on that. It should be what you signed up for.

Anyway, that's me and gambling done for now. Just wanted to add my 2cents to the conversation.

 

[snorky510238]

Glad to see you got out of the mire so to speak and that you had the awareness to realise you still have a problem.

Please don’t let time become a healer as happens with us gamblers. We forget what could of happened and only carry the memory of what did happen. Over a period of time we only remember we won so that gives us justification to do it again. Usually with disastrous results.

If you can lose control that quickly and easily after a break your time served achieved nothing so maybe it would be best to leave it alone. Only my opinion.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I took a 6 month self exclusion with gamstop and I have been permanently banned from a few major bookies (Bet365, paddypower, Ladbrokes) others have reopened or let me create new accounts including (sport nation, William Hill, bet fair and skybet) I haven't tried everything.
At first I was extremely frustrated especially given that I signed up for a 6 month self exclusion which should be just that. I think fair warning should be given about the situation by Gamstop.

I'm my case however, after coming back from the self exclusion I have to be completely honest with myself and admit that I don't have too much control.

I've been back only a few days and went on a roller-coaster up and down with my savings. Fortunately and it is fortunate, I decided to put one last bet on that would recuperate my losses (and win me a bit more) I promised myself that if it won I would activate my self exclusion again but for a year this time, which I have.

Even though for someone like me I think it's probably for the best. The decision still shouldn't be taken out of your hands when you believe it would be 6 months. Lifetime is quite an extension on that. It should be what you signed up for.

Anyway, that's me and gambling done for now. Just wanted to add my 2cents to the conversation.

Doesn't really make much sense to lifetime ban someone considering a) you didn't exclude with that operator in the first place as you went through a 3rd party and b ) you set the duration of the exclusion and served the time fair and square. As long as a cool off period and interview was conducted prior to the exclusion being lifted, enough due diligence has been shown. After that, it ultimately falls on the individual to be responsible for their gambling.

 

[Slottery]

Doesn't really make much sense to lifetime ban someone considering a) you didn't exclude with that operator in the first place as you went through a 3rd party and b ) you set the duration of the exclusion and served the time fair and square. As long as a cool off period and interview was conducted prior to the exclusion being lifted, enough due diligence has been shown. After that, it ultimately falls on the individual to be responsible for their gambling.

Hope UKGC would agree more. If there have been previous self-exclusions on account, high spending and/or other RG signs, it can be more beneficial for operator just keep account closed. Not for sure get any future RG issues and only lost one players deposits who probably were not really VIP type of customer who were welcomed back with red carpet (or was but after completing some DD after Gamstop SE was over, conclusion was player was higher risk than reward for operator).

Sometimes easier to take such a business decision than get yourself even near to anything RG related in these days UK. Dunno whole story, can ofc be that Gamstop didn't communicate very well with operator but what mentioned above can happen. Operator have right to choose their customers and many don't like high risk profile UK ones

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Hope UKGC would agree more. If there have been previous self-exclusions on account, high spending and/or other RG signs, it can be more beneficial for operator just keep account closed. Not for sure get any future RG issues and only lost one players deposits who probably were not really VIP type of customer who were welcomed back with red carpet (or was but after completing some DD after Gamstop SE was over, conclusion was player was higher risk than reward for operator).

Sometimes easier to take such a business decision than get yourself even near to anything RG related in these days UK. Dunno whole story, can ofc be that Gamstop didn't communicate very well with operator but what mentioned above can happen. Operator have right to choose their customers and many don't like high risk profile UK ones

Of course but the process of due diligence also extends to account and betting history. If it's a first time short exclusion, so long as due diligence has been performed, the operator is just shooting themselves in the foot by permanently excluding a player.

Obviously we don't know the full backstory here but it's concerning when players are having their arse wiped for them rather than having autonomy over their gambling habits.

The issue is, the more we see casinos doing this, the more that people in real need will think twice about excluding.

 

[Slottery]

Many times addictions don't go away in 6 months. Operators also do close players accounts pro-actively when seeing enough RG issues and having Gamstop SE and and trying to get account open after that get get it reviewed and conclusion can be made that better if this person in question is not playing under our license anymore.

Player really can have very different history in other operators, somewhere have made one deposit of tenner and another hell lot more with some RG signs and SE from Gamstop could have been last trigger together with other ones to make decision that players behavior is not healthy. Good or not, we don't live in world where (especially UK players) are responsible about their own spending but operators are, thanks for UKGC for that "autonomy"

Better safe than sorry when you need to make "50/50" decision if you want to accept one player with RG signs back or not. With immediate NO as answer no time spent or risk taken. If there wouldn't be so much "social responsibilities" on operators they would be happy to get all to their customers but as responsibility is extended to them, sometimes easier just say no when somebody clearly have problems because have registered to Gamstop.

Not speaking about this particular situation where not having any information but in general how some operators behave when seeing possible RG signs.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Many times addictions don't go away in 6 months. Operators also do close players accounts pro-actively when seeing enough RG issues and having Gamstop SE and and trying to get account open after that get get it reviewed and conclusion can be made that better if this person in question is not playing under our license anymore.

Player really can have very different history in other operators, somewhere have made one deposit of tenner and another hell lot more with some RG signs and SE from Gamstop could have been last trigger together with other ones to make decision that players behavior is not healthy. Good or not, we don't live in world where (especially UK players) are responsible about their own spending but operators are, thanks for UKGC for that "autonomy"

Better safe than sorry when you need to make "50/50" decision if you want to accept one player with RG signs back or not. With immediate NO as answer no time spent or risk taken. If there wouldn't be so much "social responsibilities" on operators they would be happy to get all to their customers but as responsibility is extended to them, sometimes easier just say no when somebody clearly have problems because have registered to Gamstop.

Not speaking about this particular situation where not having any information but in general how some operators behave when seeing possible RG signs.

Completely understand what you're saying but from history, it very rarely works in the long run when you use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

When self excluding, a player has already accepted there is an issue and have managed to help themselves for a period that they deemed necessary. Why would a casino bother offering self exclusion intervals if their policy is to permanently exclude?

All acting heavy handed does is scare people into not excluding in the first place which would have the opposite effect on the strive for social responsibility. There simply has to be a level of trust between the casino and the player in this instance if we're to truly take steps forward.

A common sense approach is necessary, the same as it is with SOW etc. Both the UKGC and casino operators need to get this into their heads.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I'll also add that I know of at least two cases where people feel they spend too much on slots and want a few months break but won't entertain Gamstop for the issues others have experienced.

It's counterproductive to alienate people you're trying to help. Gamstop is a self help tool. It should be nothing more than that.

 

[Slottery]

There might be other signs of RG behavior than one self-exclusion what can suggest that better to keep this account closed for good. That can happen even without ever signed to Gamstop. Operators social responsibility is to protect vulnerable people not to gamble when seeing signs that somebody can't control their playing, easiest way to avoid problems is not to let player spend money with us, then our social responsibility is filled and can't get any troubles afterward if players behavior escalates and these signs "should have been recognized" can be UKGC approach.

Not ideal or nice always to player but fully understand operator making these decisions to keep player self-excluded even would like to get back if you see potential future risk. These not happen all the time but some operators are rather save their back than risk to get in trouble because of very limited player base who have shown problems to control their gambling and signing to Gamstop is one sign of that together with others what possibly can be seen on account history.

 

[irish-ranger]

It seems that if you register with Gamstop for a temporary period and request to be removed from the register you will still not be allowed to access your existing casino accounts. I have spent a chunk of my day arguing with Virgin games who say they have no way to reopen an account because of the block Gamstop puts on the account.

So it seems that by using Gamstop you will permanently lose access to all our your accounts. They do not tell you this when you sign up

Same as myself 6 month break last year Gamesys life time ban.
Trada Conor the rep sorted it out
Lv bet the rep also sorted it out.
MT secure also whacked a life time ban but a fellow Meister member sorted it all accounts up and running.
32 RED life time ban rep informed and ignored me but hey ho no big drama.
All other accounts working grand.

 

[Mark_32Red (retired acct)]

32 RED life time ban rep informed and ignored me but hey ho no big drama.
All other accounts working grand.

Hey Irish,

Apologies I saw this thread and it reminded me of your PM. I didn’t intentionally ignore you I’ve just got the memory of a sieve and need a poke to remind me every now and then.

I did investigate your issue and it seems we’re having the same problems that some of our competitors are. I’ll explain briefly.

When you try and log in, we ping Gamstop to check if you are blocked. We get a “Yes” or “No” response. It doesn’t tell us how long your excluded for - for players safety we apply a self exclusion for the longest possible time and the account is locked.

When you come back after Gamstop, you try and log in and because the account is blocked - you’re not allowed. We don’t get to the point of checking Gamstop as the account is flagged as locked and the process doesn’t get that far.

If you forgive me for forgetting about you I’m happy to pick this up again.

Regards
Mark

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Hey Irish,

Apologies I saw this thread and it reminded me of your PM. I didn’t intentionally ignore you I’ve just got the memory of a sieve and need a poke to remind me every now and then.

I did investigate your issue and it seems we’re having the same problems that some of our competitors are. I’ll explain briefly.

When you try and log in, we ping Gamstop to check if you are blocked. We get a “Yes” or “No” response. It doesn’t tell us how long your excluded for - for players safety we apply a self exclusion for the longest possible time and the account is locked.

When you come back after Gamstop, you try and log in and because the account is blocked - you’re not allowed. We don’t get to the point of checking Gamstop as the account is flagged as locked and the process doesn’t get that far.

If you forgive me for forgetting about you I’m happy to pick this up again.

Regards
Mark

Does that mean that once you get the relevant information RE exclusion length from Gamstop, the account can be reopened as normal?

Also, would it be too hard for Gamstop to send exclusion length info along with the basic yes/no?

 

[Mark_32Red (retired acct)]

Does that mean that once you get the relevant information RE exclusion length from Gamstop, the account can be reopened as normal?

Also, would it be too hard for Gamstop to send exclusion length info along with the basic yes/no?

I can’t comment on what info Gamstop send we obviously can’t control that - however we should look at a process where we can check Gamstop register for players who want to reopen. I’ll need to check if that’s possible and put a process in place.

 

[paul7388]

I can see what will happen in a few years. Like the SE cases at the moment similar stories will occur.

Say i am talking crap all you want i don't care.

But no doubt we will be reading I joined Gamstop as i was a problem gambler. I only took a one year exclusion. But once it was over i rejoined casino's and lost all my savings. Surely knowing I had joined Gamstop the casino knows i was a problem gambler so they should have not allowed me to play again under Responsible Gambling. Am i entitled to my deposits back

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I can see what will happen in a few years. Like the SE cases at the moment similar stories will occur.

Say i am talking crap all you want i don't care.

But no doubt we will be reading I joined Gamstop as i was a problem gambler. I only took a one year exclusion. But once it was over i rejoined casino's and lost all my savings. Surely knowing I had joined Gamstop the casino knows i was a problem gambler so they should have not allowed me to play again under Responsible Gambling. Am i entitled to my deposits back

The guidelines are pretty clear. Casinos only have to refund deposits where a person has been allowed to deposit whilst self excluded at that establishment.

Once the Gamstop period ends (similar to any self exclusion) it is the responsibility of the individual to control their gambling using any of the tools available if they feel the need to do so.

 

[paul7388]

The guidelines are pretty clear. Casinos only have to refund deposits where a person has been allowed to deposit whilst self excluded at that establishment.

Once the Gamstop period ends (similar to any self exclusion) it is the responsibility of the individual to control their gambling using any of the tools available if they feel the need to do so.

You know that. I know that.

But same as the ones that tried to take advantage of SE flaws you can bet that in a year or two people will start doing the same with Gamstop.

 

[Slottery]

The guidelines are pretty clear. Casinos only have to refund deposits where a person has been allowed to deposit whilst self excluded at that establishment.

Once the Gamstop period ends (similar to any self exclusion) it is the responsibility of the individual to control their gambling using any of the tools available if they feel the need to do so.

Casinos have to spend time and resources to deal with these claims and also why you didn't stop me playing as i've been self-excluded many times and my deposit pattern and stakes started to raise and raise and you ignored that.

Guideline is also very clear that when regulator based on their findings makes decision that casino didn't enough to recognize RG signs early enough, casino can end up to to refund deposits and pay huge fine ruled by regulator. To rather overreacting and not to welcome some players bag or proactively close their account cost to casino only little bunch of deposits and save resources to have less potential problem gamblers to monitor.

Just like restaurants and night clubs for example, casinos have full right to choose who to accept and who not. If some player is not happy for that, can her or she for sure find another place to play. There are different practices in casinos to tolerate possible problem gamblers and that for sure is sign of gambling problem if player can't control his/hers playing and sign to Gamstop for fixed period, still not really saying that these players should be banned for life but casinos social responsibility expect them to use all available information they have to recognize problem gambling and even 24h time off can be seen as one (no, don't know any casino or issue where somebody would have been banned because of time out alone), setting and changing limits, reversing withdrawals, failing deposits due to insufficient funds, high amount of deposit in short period and we are not even half in the factors what need to be considered when assigning risk level to player.

Very small amount of players are counted minimum risk players, most of us been having our tilt moments etc... And when responsibility to control gambling is taken more from players to casinos, we see more nonsense bans. When you don't see value but risk, you fold your cards and game over sits well here as it does in poker table.

 

[bebo67]

And why would you need to stop all gambling for 6 months if it wasn’t causing you problems and you could trust yourself?

People do it all the time to save money. Doesn't mean they have a problem, just means they have a problem saving money.