Investigation into UK Casino Operators - Gamstop, Exclusion and Verification

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
The time has come. The I's dotted and the T's crossed.

To think where to begin....perhaps a little bit of context and reasoning behind the investigatory work and subsequent actions.

So, I had been gambling online for a considerable number of years. Lost a hell of a lot of money and really had a big problem with it. I was in a bit of a mess and had some battles with online gambling companies and did some really silly things, like use different details to sign up and play. I had excluded my original details from every single operator out there and obviously used Gamstop as well.

This all changed in October last year when I had a chance meeting with someone from the UKGC and had a great conversation about some of the issues I, and other players, had faced with online Gambling. We agreed that Gamstop wasn't a saviour for excluded players and was actually incredibly easy to get round. I then contacted a media outlet who had also been covering Gambling quite heavily in recent years and they had asked myself and a couple of other individuals if we would be willing to investigate from a players perspective some of the issues discussed. The UKGC had advised as well that they would be willing to look at anything that was provided as part of this.

So, this was a 3 fold investigation.

1. Gamstop - To check the effectiveness of Gamstop and to see how easy it would be to get past this

2. Exclusions - To check the effectiveness of exclusion systems in place with the operators to see who could detect duplicate accounts and who couldnt

3. Verification - Not initially an area of concern, but as this investigation highlights, it was a massive part of things and would like to think some of the work provided to the UKGC helped make the recent changes possible.

Please note, all opinions stated in this are my own, the recorded evidence against each operator is factual and can be backed up if required to any operator, body or third party.

Method 1 - Correct Name, Correct Address, Correct Phone Number(match to Gamstop details), different date of birth and email address. Used in all cases attached.

Method 2 - Incorrect Name - Correct Address, Correct Phone Number, different date of birth and same email address. Used on top of method 1 cases where bypassed at first stage.

See the attached PDF document.

An explanation -
Green - Means excluded from opening any kind of account on registration.
Orange - Able to open an account and deposit funds but later excluded after 72 hours
Red - Able to open account(s) and deposit well after 72 hours so can only assume that auto verified or not verified at all. Docs never requested.
Purple - Able to open account but asked for docs, docs sent and still verified account with wrong date of birth despite ID clearly showing this.


Special mentions to Kindred Group and William Hill. Not only able to open 1 or 2 accounts but at least 4 within the groups using both methods. Some on the list may also surprise some and others not so much.

Key Points - This highlights that a majority of operators were doing the right things in terms of having appropriate exclusion systems and verification systems in place. Some though....well...for companies of the size they are really should hang their heads in shame.

A special mention to Betway who fully verified an account even though ID provided didnt match the account details and then had the audacity to send an email from Senior Management when questioned saying "Betway think first about customer experience, even though the DOB and ID did not match we believed we were acting in the customers interest by removing the restriction on the account".

Anyway, any comments, actions, anything else then please feel free to comment. All information has been provided to the third party and UKGC regardless and we have been working on post 7th of May as well in the past 2 weeks.
 

Attachments

  • SE LIST UPDATED PRE 7TH MAY.pdf
    191.7 KB · Views: 134

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Therein lies the issue - problem gamblers are the most likely people to have the guile to bypass safety measures thus frequently do so. It's clear some operators are far more efficient at picking this up than others, but GAMSTOP does actually say it's not proof against changed details.

The real solution is a free tool for all devices which will effectively stop you gambling as it knows virtually every gambling domain and url. It cannot be removed by the average Joe either. This is what thePOGG has worked on providing so if you have it, you won't get as far as registering false details.

Interesting stuff though. I am glad you referenced the pre-verification date from the UKGC as it's important to check out the difference, if any, it makes to the overall issue.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Therein lies the issue - problem gamblers are the most likely people to have the guile to bypass safety measures thus frequently do so. It's clear some operators are far more efficient at picking this up than others, but GAMSTOP does actually say it's not proof against changed details.

The real solution is a free tool for all devices which will effectively stop you gambling as it knows virtually every gambling domain and url. It cannot be removed by the average Joe either. This is what thePOGG has worked on providing so if you have it, you won't get as far as registering false details.

Interesting stuff though. I am glad you referenced the pre-verification date from the UKGC as it's important to check out the difference, if any, it makes to the overall issue.

Yeah there is problem gamblers but as a wider issue underage gamblers could find some of these things easy to pass. For example, changing a name and DOB, the "auto age check" was only run on the first initial, surname and address. Nothing to do with full names or DOB. Essentially anyone at an address could sign up. It was really open season.

Hopefully the changes will have the desired effect.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
No real surprises there for me.
Obviously I knew what you had been doing from other posts, and would have put 888, MTST, 32red/Kindred, Jumpman and Progressplay at the top of my list of those I expected to fail. Progressplay is the only one who didn't.

Can I ask if you used the same IP address for them all? Did the ones who failed, fail on using the same details as registered with Gamstop or different?

@Mark_32Red @Vera&John any comments?
 

brianmon

Ueber Meister
webby
mm4
Joined
May 22, 2013
Location
Cumbria
The time has come. The I's dotted and the T's crossed.

To think where to begin....perhaps a little bit of context and reasoning behind the investigatory work and subsequent actions.

So, I had been gambling online for a considerable number of years. Lost a hell of a lot of money and really had a big problem with it. I was in a bit of a mess and had some battles with online gambling companies and did some really silly things, like use different details to sign up and play. I had excluded my original details from every single operator out there and obviously used Gamstop as well.

This all changed in October last year when I had a chance meeting with someone from the UKGC and had a great conversation about some of the issues I, and other players, had faced with online Gambling. We agreed that Gamstop wasn't a saviour for excluded players and was actually incredibly easy to get round. I then contacted a media outlet who had also been covering Gambling quite heavily in recent years and they had asked myself and a couple of other individuals if we would be willing to investigate from a players perspective some of the issues discussed. The UKGC had advised as well that they would be willing to look at anything that was provided as part of this.

So, this was a 3 fold investigation.

1. Gamstop - To check the effectiveness of Gamstop and to see how easy it would be to get past this

2. Exclusions - To check the effectiveness of exclusion systems in place with the operators to see who could detect duplicate accounts and who couldnt

3. Verification - Not initially an area of concern, but as this investigation highlights, it was a massive part of things and would like to think some of the work provided to the UKGC helped make the recent changes possible.

Please note, all opinions stated in this are my own, the recorded evidence against each operator is factual and can be backed up if required to any operator, body or third party.

Method 1 - Correct Name, Correct Address, Correct Phone Number(match to Gamstop details), different date of birth and email address. Used in all cases attached.

Method 2 - Incorrect Name - Correct Address, Correct Phone Number, different date of birth and same email address. Used on top of method 1 cases where bypassed at first stage.

See the attached PDF document.

An explanation -
Green - Means excluded from opening any kind of account on registration.
Orange - Able to open an account and deposit funds but later excluded after 72 hours
Red - Able to open account(s) and deposit well after 72 hours so can only assume that auto verified or not verified at all. Docs never requested.
Purple - Able to open account but asked for docs, docs sent and still verified account with wrong date of birth despite ID clearly showing this.


Special mentions to Kindred Group and William Hill. Not only able to open 1 or 2 accounts but at least 4 within the groups using both methods. Some on the list may also surprise some and others not so much.

Key Points - This highlights that a majority of operators were doing the right things in terms of having appropriate exclusion systems and verification systems in place. Some though....well...for companies of the size they are really should hang their heads in shame.

A special mention to Betway who fully verified an account even though ID provided didnt match the account details and then had the audacity to send an email from Senior Management when questioned saying "Betway think first about customer experience, even though the DOB and ID did not match we believed we were acting in the customers interest by removing the restriction on the account".

Anyway, any comments, actions, anything else then please feel free to comment. All information has been provided to the third party and UKGC regardless and we have been working on post 7th of May as well in the past 2 weeks.

Was this started a while ago?
Casino Cruise haven't been on the EveryMatrix platform for quite some time now, and are the main site of Genesis Global.
So it's odd that two sister sites, Cruise and Spinit, gave such different results
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Was this started a while ago?
Casino Cruise haven't been on the EveryMatrix platform for quite some time now, and are the main site of Genesis Global.
So it's odd that two sister sites, Cruise and Spinit, gave such different results

Started last year and I'm certain Everymatrix were listed for them on the licence. Now inactive of course.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
No real surprises there for me.
Obviously I knew what you had been doing from other posts, and would have put 888, MTST, 32red/Kindred, Jumpman and Progressplay at the top of my list of those I expected to fail. Progressplay is the only one who didn't.

Can I ask if you used the same IP address for them all? Did the ones who failed, fail on using the same details as registered with Gamstop or different?

@Mark_32Red @Vera&John any comments?

Yes same IP address.

On the ones who failed I used method 1. So this was to test Gamstop to see if it was actually 4 out of 5 or not. I also had previous accounts which were excluded on ALL of the casino operators listed, some under an old address but they still managed to in the main find the duplication of details.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Yes same IP address.

On the ones who failed I used method 1. So this was to test Gamstop to see if it was actually 4 out of 5 or not. I also had previous accounts which were excluded on ALL of the casino operators listed, some under an old address but they still managed to in the main find the duplication of details.

Some operators had IP checks as well actually. Nektan for instance blocked any attempt to open an account with even my partners details!
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Was this started a while ago?
Casino Cruise haven't been on the EveryMatrix platform for quite some time now, and are the main site of Genesis Global.
So it's odd that two sister sites, Cruise and Spinit, gave such different results

As I also don't have any comms with CCruise I cant even confirm 100% but I did have comms with Spinit of course.
 

paul7388

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Location
glasgow scotland
Okay i might be in the minority here.

But i must be the only one that just does not think this is right.

Agreed that casinos verification is wrong and they should be doing everything possible to verify players properly and make sure problem gamblers can not register.

But you have admitted you are a problem gambler. In fact every post you have made since signing up here has been on the subject.

So i just think it is totally wrong for a gambling addict to be trying to sign up to every casino out using different details and making deposits. Surely last thing that you should be doing is depositing a penny in any casino whether it is to get info or prove a point.

It is like an alcoholic getting a job as a whisky taster.

Maybe i have read it wrong if so i apologize but i have read that you got in a mess and had a serious gambling problem that made you sign up to Gamstop etc. for help and even then you still tried to register at casinos. Fair enough that is what problem gamblers do.

But after talking to media you are now testing these casinos verification procedures and making deposits. Like i say i will be the minority i just think that is wrong and irresponsible on both yourself and whatever medias part.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Okay i might be in the minority here.

But i must be the only one that just does not think this is right.

Agreed that casinos verification is wrong and they should be doing everything possible to verify players properly and make sure problem gamblers can not register.

But you have admitted you are a problem gambler. In fact every post you have made since signing up as been on the subject.

So i just think it is totally wrong for a gambling addict to be trying to sign up to every casino out using different details and making deposits. Surely last thing that you should be doing is depositing a penny in any casino whether it is to get info or prove a point.

It is like an alcoholic getting a job as a whisky taster.

Maybe i have read it wrong if so i apologize but i have read that you got in a mess and had a serious gambling problem that made you sign up to Gamstop etc. for help and even then you still tried to register at casinos. Fair enough that is what problem gamblers do.

But after talking to media you are now testing these casinos verification procedures and making deposits. Like i say i will be the minority i just think that is wrong and irresponsible on both yourself and whatever medias part.

Problem gambler, was, yes.

Steps were taken to prevent anything like that, such as setting minimum limits, restrictions on debit cards etc. I had long admitted I had a problem with it and long since stopped being so stupid with it. The prompt for me to act was the utter tripe I was fed by one operator last year aligned with the meeting and speaking to others in similar positions. A large operator, essentially mocking the fact that they can use their terms and conditions to get round everything. The money was theirs and there was no way of it coming back despite their failings. So it was decided at that point to take this further and actually provide evidence to the UKGC that this was rife in the industry...not amongst your smaller operators...but some of the largest ones. It didnt seem like anything was being done at all to address it. I have had numerous cases to the UKGC as well with all the same info. For me, it was me coming out of being a gambler and analysing things and trying to do something worthwhile to prevent others being able to see the same problems that I have.

For me its also show that the same operators I had problems with Pre Gamstop are the same operators I have problems with post Gamstop! It also shows that a vast majority actually do their jobs as per the LCCP whereas others just do the minimal required.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Over a week later and no rep input at all, including from @Mark_32Red who has read the thread and who's casino was the worst of them all. Says it all really doesn't it.
 

Scott1baird

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Location
Isle of Bute Scotland
Okay am I the only one seeing what is wrong here?
First we have a problem gambler who talked to the UKGC and some newspaper (I presume) who then decided to give this troubled gambler who was SE through whatever system he used. Who financed this for the deposits? Myself I am SE at rizk and after reading this I decided to try and open an account using many different methods not a single one work. One I was accepted but after I done the email verification it was blocked right away. This is without using gamban.
Shouldn't this newspaper be investigated for encouraging a problem gambler into trying to screw the system in the first place? Isn't that unethical? When you made your deposits where you allowed to play? Did you win? Did you get a cash out? Did you rip them all? Answer those as well.
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
I'm not sure what the problem is? If there are failings then how else can they be highlighted if not by normal customers circumventing the system? We have all seen the massive gamstop failings over the past year or so, all of which have been highlighted by normal customers managing to get past the checks without too much trouble. If someone is willing to do it as a test, then to me thats a good thing, it also shows which casinos don't really care about RG issues as long as they get the money. As I said earlier in the thread, the ones who failed were pretty much exactly who I expected to, so none have really changed recently.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Okay am I the only one seeing what is wrong here?
First we have a problem gambler who talked to the UKGC and some newspaper (I presume) who then decided to give this troubled gambler who was SE through whatever system he used. Who financed this for the deposits? Myself I am SE at rizk and after reading this I decided to try and open an account using many different methods not a single one work. One I was accepted but after I done the email verification it was blocked right away. This is without using gamban.
Shouldn't this newspaper be investigated for encouraging a problem gambler into trying to screw the system in the first place? Isn't that unethical? When you made your deposits where you allowed to play? Did you win? Did you get a cash out? Did you rip them all? Answer those as well.

The media initially had accepted a point of interest and part of that was to provide specific examples in practice. The third party offered no encouragement to do this. I had lost enough in the past, there was nothing more to lose. Some, not all, of the problem ones returned deposits made as they admitted a problem. Others have not and never admitted to a problem. Getting deposits back was not the point, exposing the same old faces definitely was.

Post 7th of May I have been able to open 2 accounts. One with K8 Bet who also allowed deposits and another with Daub Alderney who verified an account with wrong ID. Daub, to their credit, quickly rectified the mistake. K8 Bet haven't acknowledged anything yet. All other operators seem to have got their houses in order.
 

interlog

Meister Member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
MM
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Location
London
I'm not sure what the problem is? If there are failings then how else can they be highlighted if not by normal customers circumventing the system? We have all seen the massive gamstop failings over the past year or so, all of which have been highlighted by normal customers managing to get past the checks without too much trouble. If someone is willing to do it as a test, then to me thats a good thing, it also shows which casinos don't really care about RG issues as long as they get the money. As I said earlier in the thread, the ones who failed were pretty much exactly who I expected to, so none have really changed recently.

So what is wrong with a journalist acting as a normal customer testing it, rather than an (ex) problem gambler? I think that is the point being made?
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
So what is wrong with a journalist acting as a normal customer testing it, rather than an (ex) problem gambler? I think that is the point being made?

Because they didn't have permanent network exclusions from before that I did, that's why. These companies had my correct original details as well which I excluded from. That's what makes it even worse.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
So what is wrong with a journalist acting as a normal customer testing it, rather than an (ex) problem gambler? I think that is the point being made?

Also, they have done this on Gamstop. This was about more than Gamstop. This showed a definite divide in the industry with some having robust systems and others not. As CS said earlier, it could have been predicted without doing the checks who would be on that list, but there was no real first hand evidence of it.
 

Jj24680

Newbie member
Joined
Sep 25, 2016
Location
uk
I absolutely agree with what you said about some of the bigger casinos flaunting their blatant Failing's and use their terms and conditions as a loophole. I don't use gamstop as I don't have any issues with gambling but I do play at a small online casino that most people have never heard of. The casino is not part of gamstop yet, I'm sure that will change at some point when it becomes mandatory for all ukgg casinos to be part of gamstop. I am not saying the name because I don't want people with issues going on and signing up. As I said this casino is small and hardly anyone has heard of it and its not on any list on casinomeister yet its one of the best casinos iv ever played at online. Not many games but all of them run smoothly with no bugs. The KYC took 15 minutes and my withdrawal was done and had the money in my bank 2 days later. There is no live chat, only phone and email but they reply to emails within 15 to 30 minutes and they answer the phone within 10 rings and are very nice and helpful. Alot of people say that if the casinos are not on gamstop yet then they must be dodgie but I don't really don't believe that. I have seen so many big casinos who play by the book on paper but are the most sly and unscrupulous casinos ever while the little casinos like the one I play at, may not have big fancy TV adverts and 100s and 100s of games but they are the easiest and straight forward casinos around.
 

EkJR

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Location
Glasgow
Small update to post 7th of May checks. Actually some incredible stuff. Companies who previously denied opening of a new account suddenly able to open an account. It gets worse, send my correct ID which does not match the account and they go ahead and fully verify the accounts! Not sure if it's just human error or a complete lack of caring but it's happened.

888 casino once again, BGO, Partycasino, Betway AGAIN, Sportsnation. Just utterly bizarre that they would want to sign players up with lack of care when they player has full rights to reclaim every penny on the grounds that it's a direct failing of LCCP.
 
Top