Leo vegas self exclusion problem

pinnit2014

Ueber Meister
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
Not getting into whether there should or shouldn’t be a refund but in the simplest form: LV know they’re taking another company onto their licence. They know with that will come a SE database. The delay in merging/cross referencing the two sets of data is their issue/fault. In essence they’ve allowed a SE player to play on their shared licence.

Pretty sure the takeover didn’t happen overnight so probably may have been better planned to ensure all SE players were identified from the off.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
With respect you are missing the point.Had Leo vegas applied the rules regarding responsible gaming then they should not have allowed play win or lose from 1/3/2018.If this happens they have to rewind the account back to zero whether win or lose no matter how fair they were to begin with.

I still just see someone that want the money back, not someone that have admitted they have a gambling problem and are ready to take responsibility for their own actions and now wants to quit.
It's really easy today to blame it all on the casinos. It seems like they are always the bad guys and the players are the victims.
 

adamjames

Newbie member
PABnoaccred
Joined
May 29, 2018
Location
Uk
I still just see someone that want the money back, not someone that have admitted they have a gambling problem and are ready to take responsibility for their own actions and now wants to quit.
It's really easy today to blame it all on the casinos. It seems like they are always the bad guys and the players are
 

colinsunderland

On a Break
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
I still just see someone that want the money back, not someone that have admitted they have a gambling problem and are ready to take responsibility for their own actions and now wants to quit.
It's really easy today to blame it all on the casinos. It seems like they are always the bad guys and the players are the victims.

But it is the casinos fault. They should have applied the SE from the date of the takeover, not 3 months later. Forgetting about if the money should be paid back, how is this the players fault?

SE is a hot topic, theres no way it should take 3 months to merge databases, especially considering recent fines. You take over another group of casinos, make sure this type of thing are in place BEFORE the go live date, not months later.
 

adamjames

Newbie member
PABnoaccred
Joined
May 29, 2018
Location
Uk
Oh stop it..I already said if they had SE'd within a week of take over I'd of lived with it.I fully intend to get back anything I'm entitled to.Regardless of refund I'll be making UKGC aware
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
But it is the casinos fault. They should have applied the SE from the date of the takeover, not 3 months later. Forgetting about if the money should be paid back, how is this the players fault?

I would have agreed if he hadn't been treated like any other player. He new what he did though. He made the deposits and he played. He is responsible for what he does.
He wouldn't have paid back the money if he had won a lot, or do you think he had?
 

adamjames

Newbie member
PABnoaccred
Joined
May 29, 2018
Location
Uk
I would have agreed if he hadn't been treated like any other player. He new what he did though. He made the deposits and he played. He is responsible for what he does.
He wouldn't have paid back the money if he had won a lot, or do you think he

Which is why the UKGC say to repay deposits minus withdrawals which is perfectly reasonable
 

colinsunderland

On a Break
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
I would have agreed if he hadn't been treated like any other player. He new what he did though. He made the deposits and he played. He is responsible for what he does.
He wouldn't have paid back the money if he had won a lot, or do you think he had?

You're missing the point. You made it out that the casino are right and the player is wrong. The casino aren't right. The player was Self Excluded, therefore he shouldn't have been able to play from the 1st March. The whole point of SE is that once done you cannot play any more under any casino using that license. The system is flawed in that you can then sign up elsewhere, but doesn't change the fact that LV should not have allowed any play, deposits or withdrawals from 1st March. Not sure how the player is the bad guy here and the casino the victim. The law is pretty clear.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
You're missing the point. You made it out that the casino are right and the player is wrong. The casino aren't right. The player was Self Excluded, therefore he shouldn't have been able to play from the 1st March. The whole point of SE is that once done you cannot play any more under any casino using that license. The system is flawed in that you can then sign up elsewhere, but doesn't change the fact that LV should not have allowed any play, deposits or withdrawals from 1st March. Not sure how the player is the bad guy here and the casino the victim. The law is pretty clear.

No, I do agree the casino should have done it immediately and they are no victim, but so are not the player either.

Is it responsible to give someone that's admitted of being an addict back the money he lost so he can give them to another casino? That just because they share the license with the casino that is bought now. As someone pointed out then Royal Panda is also bought by Leo Vegas but are still having their own license so these rules isn't the same for them.
Being responsible have somehow become a matter of who is under the same license, not who is responsible for the company.

I'm sure though that they will pay the player anyway so don't worry about my opinion.
 

goatwack

We call him....Humperdoo
CAG
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Location
Londonia
When taking over another casino you're taking on their list of SE players too, so having allowed someone to carry on depositing after the fact surely means they are liable. The casino is definitely at fault here, and should retroactively reimburse all monies past that date. Alternatively, they can pay a few million for allowing self-admitted problem gamblers, cause that's what SE basically boils down to, to carry on playing at their site.

Chances are LV would have not paid any winnings out either, citing SE as an excuse.

Yet, SEing at one site and playing elsewhere doesn't make much sense to me anyway. You stop everywhere or not at all - go hard or go home :D
 

adamjames

Newbie member
PABnoaccred
Joined
May 29, 2018
Location
Uk
You're missing the point. You made it out that the casino are right and the player is wrong. The casino aren't right. The player was Self Excluded, therefore he shouldn't have been able to play from the 1st March. The whole point of SE is that once done you cannot play any more under any casino using that license. The system is flawed in that you can then sign up elsewhere, but doesn't change the fact that LV should not have allowed any play, deposits or withdrawals from 1st March. Not sure how the player is the bad guy here and the casino the victim. The law is pretty clear.
I have noticed on here that gamblers hate seeing other gamblers get money back
 

colinsunderland

On a Break
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
No, I do agree the casino should have done it immediately and they are no victim, but so are not the player either.

Is it responsible to give someone that's admitted of being an addict back the money he lost so he can give them to another casino? That just because they share the license with the casino that is bought now. As someone pointed out then Royal Panda is also bought by Leo Vegas but are still having their own license so these rules isn't the same for them.
Being responsible have somehow become a matter of who is under the same license, not who is responsible for the company.

I'm sure though that they will pay the player anyway so don't worry about my opinion.

I'm not sure you understand addiction. The point of SE is to stop people with problems or addictions being able to stop because they don't have the will power to do it themselves. The nature of addiction will mean if one avenue is blocked, they will try another. Just like if a coke dealer goes out of business, then the punters will find another one, not stop taking it. This is why Gamstop is a great idea, and when fully live should stop situations like this. However, if a casino knowingly allows a player with a self admitted problem/addicted to continue playing then they are the problem too. You can talk about responsibility forever, but unless you have had an addiction you cannot possibly know how strong the urge is too keep going with it. I worked with people with addictions for years, in one on one and group scenarios (not gambling related) and I don't understand them completely, but do know, some of them would do anything to get a fix, opening a webpage and signing up for another casino is not hard!

The fact is, the casino are in the wrong here, the law backs that up, and to demonstrate how serious these types of failings are, look at the size of recent UKGC fines. I think the player should be paid back net deposits, I'm not so sure that will happen, but certainly LV should be held accountable for this, either by doing so, or by way of another large fine by the UKGC for allowing problem gamblers to gamble for almost 3 months after being made aware that they had a problem.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
I'm not sure you understand addiction. The point of SE is to stop people with problems or addictions being able to stop because they don't have the will power to do it themselves. The nature of addiction will mean if one avenue is blocked, they will try another. Just like if a coke dealer goes out of business, then the punters will find another one, not stop taking it. This is why Gamstop is a great idea, and when fully live should stop situations like this. However, if a casino knowingly allows a player with a self admitted problem/addicted to continue playing then they are the problem too. You can talk about responsibility forever, but unless you have had an addiction you cannot possibly know how strong the urge is too keep going with it. I worked with people with addictions for years, in one on one and group scenarios (not gambling related) and I don't understand them completely, but do know, some of them would do anything to get a fix, opening a webpage and signing up for another casino is not hard!

The fact is, the casino are in the wrong here, the law backs that up, and to demonstrate how serious these types of failings are, look at the size of recent UKGC fines. I think the player should be paid back net deposits, I'm not so sure that will happen, but certainly LV should be held accountable for this, either by doing so, or by way of another large fine by the UKGC for allowing problem gamblers to gamble for almost 3 months after being made aware that they had a problem.

I do understand addiction and like you I have been working with it for several years earlier, both gamblers and other addictions. I also have lost a brother to drugs and there is not much I don't know about it. From all views. People in here are often talking about the poor addict, while I claim that they need to take responsibility. How we help making them do that though is another thing. I often sound rough when I speak about responsibility but it's more to make them see the reality and stop using all chances they can to get another fix.

A law is nice to have in this case, but unfortunately I don't think it will help much but will instead drive the gamblers outside of uk licensed casinos. Gamstop is great if it's used with other ways preventing the addict to enter casino sites.

But as I said before, they should have closed the account earlier, and the player will probably get his deposits back, but he should also take responsibility and stop gambling. Get help please!
 

adamjames

Newbie member
PABnoaccred
Joined
May 29, 2018
Location
Uk
I do understand addiction and like you I have been working with it for several years earlier, both gamblers and other addictions. I also have lost a brother to drugs and there is not much I don't know about it. From all views. People in here are often talking about the poor addict, while I claim that they need to take responsibility. How we help making them do that though is another thing. I often sound rough when I speak about responsibility but it's more to make them see the reality and stop using all chances they can to get another fix.

A law is nice to have in this case, but unfortunately I don't think it will help much but will instead drive the gamblers outside of uk licensed casinos. Gamstop is great if it's used with other ways preventing the addict to enter casino sites.

But as I said before, they should have closed the account earlier, and the player will probably get his deposits back, but he should also take responsibility and stop gambling. Get help please!
Do you gamble? Cause of you do then you are an addict as well no?
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Do you gamble? Cause of you do then you are an addict as well no?
No she is not an addict - and that is a bit out of line.

Not everyone here feels that the casino is in the wrong. You signed up and played fully well knowing that you had SE'd from another casino. As soon as you found out these casinos were connected you cry foul and want your money back.

You aren't here to find help for a gambling problem - you are here wanting someone to take responsibility for your actions.

No one forced you to sign up and deposit there. You did it on your own volition.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
Do you gamble? Cause of you do then you are an addict as well no?

This wasn't about me though but I can answer anyway.

No, I wouldn't say I am. Some goes to the movie or restaurants and some of us finds it fun to gamble. It can be used as an escape too of course, if you're sick or don't have anything else to do. I think it's fun. I also was very sick for a few years and this forum and playing was a bit of a rescue for me.
I also have found it fun and interesting to learn about the industry, and I've been part of this forum now for many years. That is more a problem for me though that it's difficult to stay away from here. An addiction to the CM forum maybe :)
 

adamjames

Newbie member
PABnoaccred
Joined
May 29, 2018
Location
Uk
No she is not an addict - and that is a bit out of line.

Not everyone here feels that the casino is in the wrong. You signed up and played fully well knowing that you had SE'd from another casino. As soon as you found out these casinos were connected you cry foul and want your money back.

You aren't here to find help for a gambling problem - you are here wanting someone to take responsibility for your actions.

No one forced you to sign up and deposit there. You did it
Sorry.najority who have commented do agree casino is wrong.Thanks

Majority on here actually DO agree casino is in the wrong it would seem.And can we remember LV initiated all this and it waa not a case of me going after them after I lost.

And I was NEVER excluded by LV only after they took over a casino I WAS excluded from and then took 3 months to pick up on it...so the casino have done nothing wrong?.I ha r never gone after losses but the rules say I can so I will..who wouldnt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Majority on here actually DO agree casino is in the wrong it would seem.And can we remember LV initiated all this and it waa not a case of me going after them after I lost.
It doesn't make much difference who is agreeing and who isn't since we only have your side of the story. I'm not saying you are being untruthful or misleading in any way, but to be able to give an educated opinion on something like this is to see both sides.

As I may have mentioned before, with many members from different countries and backgrounds, there are many opinions. Some opinions may sway toward the feeling that companies are at fault for accepting bets from people who should not be gambling, others feel that it is the gambler who needs to take responsibility for one's actions. I spent a good chunk of my adult life in the military, and IMO it is the individual that is in charge of one's actions - you don't place blame on others. Other people here have a different approach to that.

Has the casino rep been in touch with you?
 

adamjames

Newbie member
PABnoaccred
Joined
May 29, 2018
Location
Uk
It doesn't make much difference who is agreeing and who isn't since we only have your side of the story. I'm not saying you are being untruthful or misleading in any way, but to be able to give an educated opinion on something like this is to see both sides.



As I may have mentioned before, with many members from different countries and backgrounds, there are many opinions. Some opinions may sway toward the feeling that companies are at fault for accepting bets from people who should not be gambling, others feel that it is the gambler who needs to take responsibility for one's actions. I spent a good chunk of my adult life in the military, and IMO it is the individual that is in charge of one's actions - you don't place blame on others. Other people here have a different approach to that.

Has the casino rep been in touch with you?
He messaged yesterday asking for email.I said I was happy to give it but this is currently with their responsible gaming dept and would it cause confusion....had no response at all
 

LadyJelena

CM Account Manager
Staff member
CAG
MM
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Location
Serbia
Hey there :)

LeoVegas rep is notified and they'll come back here with more info, after checking with the right department :)
 

colinsunderland

On a Break
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Do you gamble? Cause of you do then you are an addict as well no?

Bit over the top that. As much as I don't agree with Tirilej on this I don't think theres any call for that.
I play slots. I bet on horses. I bet on football.
I'm not an addict, I can, and do, stop whenever I feel like it, no problems.
If someone has a glass of wine it doesn't mean they are an alcoholic.
 

adamjames

Newbie member
PABnoaccred
Joined
May 29, 2018
Location
Uk
Bit over the top that. As much as I don't agree with Tirilej on this I don't think theres any call for that.
I play slots. I bet on horses. I bet on football.
I'm not an addict, I can, and do, stop whenever I feel like it, no problems.
If someone has a glass of wine it doesn't mean they are an

Bit over the top that. As much as I don't agree with Tirilej on this I don't think theres any call for that.
I play slots. I bet on horses. I bet on football.
I'm not an addict, I can, and do, stop whenever I feel like it, no problems.
If someone has a glass of wine it doesn't mean they are an alcoholic.
I was being sarcy
 
Top