Nickslots just got hit by Rizk limits mid stream!

[coolrunnings19]

Very true, eradicating all the 'go to places' is probably not the answer. The root of the issue needs addressing. However thing like loss limits and 2 pounds max stake coming in will just turn many of the online casinos out of the UK to other jurisdictions. I think once the 2 pound stake limit comes in all the streamers will leave, then couples with loss limits, people who like to gamble will already have reached their loss limit on day 1 or 2 of the month and they won't be bothered waiting a month until they can play for one day again. Also, this might mean more people will turn back to going to the high street shops which are becoming ghost towns

 

[Casino12345]

They sould ban that max bet button. I really do not think there is anyone who is like: hey, lets start the first spin with a max bet without knowing how much it is!

 

[coolrunnings19]

Well the max bet button will simply be just 2 pounds now anyway. But even so you are right, some players don't want the max bet button there! Most want to play on 20, 25 or 50p a spin. Even playing at 50p a spin over 5 or 10 minutes, you could soon go through 100 pounds easily...and more!

 

[Slottery]

Really it should though, as the bank has to do SoF checks as part of their AML obligations. However the UKGC state clearly that casinos shouldn't rely on other parties to have done the checks. Personally I think the banks should be doing this type of thing, they can see all transactions, and where they came from, rather than a casino based outside the UK wanting all your financial information. It will only be a matter of time until we find out some casino employee has shared all customer data like this with someone else. While that could happen with a bank, I would suggest it is much less likely.

That's the main thing, i don't think any companies who are demanded to follow AML regulations can just say "We thought it must be ok money as it came from bank who have to follow AML regulations". Banks have so huge amount of customers and daily transactions that their AML monitoring is way higher like for example casino operators, i can pretty much transfer anything up to 10k eur to anyones account without any questions if not happening to be from FATF high risk country or in some sanction list (when should be under more strict monitoring).

If banks would have to go through same level audits for relatively small amounts like casino operators and many other businesses, there would be loads of failures found but due to their different level of volumes, there's not many regulators asking them why this guy get 5k eur every month from his mother or some other 3rd party person, if as casino operator you see that somebody gambling is funded by 3rd party, it's high risk AML and also strictly against most of casinos T&C:s. Active casino players and especially scammers can have quite interesting audit trails in their cashflows and once you see something like that, it's bit hard just to let it go as it's gone through banks etc... as you know that you should request some SOF what da fck these transfers are and report it if not getting satisfying proof to discard your concerns.

MGA/UGKC and other regulators are quite excited in their AML audits to see risk EDD verified players and their risk assessments with all supporting documents, not sure how beneficial it is to keep reporting quite small amounts of unexplained funds to FIAU or other authorities but these SAR/STR:s are expected to be filled and for casino it takes off responsibility from that moment it's reported. Most of these reports don't even get reply within official timeframe but that can be seen as consent from authorities that balance from account can be paid even not really satisfying documentation for SOF ever provided.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Well whoever is responsible for checking there should be some kind of responsibility on the casino. If someone buys a mobile phone or laptop or TV from someone who unloads it off the back of his van then the person buying it should ask questions, where has it come from? Stolen? Is it second hand? Did they buy it from someone? House clearance? Where is the receipt. If the police can confiscate stolen goods off someone who receives then casinos can be held accountable for similar failings. If someone id depositing 2k or 3k a month they must be on 100k a year or over to be able to afford it. If they can't prove their wages then it must be coming from dodgy sources - ok it is in the bank so it has gone through the system. But if it is a personal bank account then it may be cash paid in from undeclared earnings - again this is subject to tax law. But I can see that it isn't the casinos job to make sure people are abiding by the law. But if the money isn't theirs then later it comes that a person should have paid taxes the casino may be liable to pay that money back to the rightful owner. So the casinos are trying to avoid all this by asking further questions ans wanting proof of earnings. Basically yes it is the end for online casinos in the UK..it is the beginning of the end.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

If someone id depositing 2k or 3k a month they must be on 100k a year or over to be able to afford it.

Well not really, no. It depends on your monthly turnover on slots.

Someone might earn 2k per month, deposit £100 at casino and withdraw another 2k. That 2k is then fair game to be redeposited. Doesn't mean they're a launderer or earn 100k a year...

 

[coolrunnings19]

Well not really, no. It depends on your monthly turnover on slots.

Someone might earn 2k per month, deposit £100 at casino and withdraw another 2k. That 2k is then fair game to be redeposited. Doesn't mean they're a launderer or earn 100k a year...

No that is true but the casino will know if that customer has won the 2k. We are looking at loss limits as well. Of someone loses 2k a month and is still depositing checks need to be made. Winnings can be recycled you are correct there

 

[Slottery]

Well not really, no. It depends on your monthly turnover on slots.

Someone might earn 2k per month, deposit £100 at casino and withdraw another 2k. That 2k is then fair game to be redeposited. Doesn't mean they're a launderer or earn 100k a year...

One famos thing asked in UKGC audit "How you know these funds are redeposited?" You are not allowed to automatically assume that players redeposit their winnings, especially for any longer period, if you win today £10k, it's not really proof of anything if you two months after deposit £3k.

When counting what amount can be fairly assumed is redeposited, especially UKGC demand casinos be quite conservative with their assumptions when it's only based that this guy been also winning so we only think about net losses, when this audit trail can be seen from bank/netwallet statement it's cool but without it's just guessing.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

One famos thing asked in UKGC audit "How you know these funds are redeposited?" You are not allowed to automatically assume that players redeposit their winnings, especially for any longer period, if you win today £10k, it's not really proof of anything if you two months after deposit £3k.

When counting what amount can be fairly assumed is redeposited, especially UKGC demand casinos be quite conservative with their assumptions when it's only based that this guy been also winning so we only think about net losses, when this audit trail can be seen from bank/netwallet statement it's cool but without it's just guessing.

We're always going to disagree on this one as I'll never believe that it should be the job of casinos to rummage through people's financial history. Quite rightly there is a lot of sentiment against it.

 

[Gaz237]

We're always going to disagree on this one as I'll never believe that it should be the job of casinos to rummage through people's financial history. Quite rightly there is a lot of sentiment against it.

Sadly the UKGC have made it the casinos job.

It must be a complete ballache for them trying to cover all bases, with the threat of heavy fines and to be honest as a player, all this SOW crap has taken the joy of a withdrawal away, because you wondering if it's your time. As i have found out 3 times.

 

[Slottery]

We're always going to disagree on this one as I'll never believe that it should be the job of casinos to rummage through people's financial history. Quite rightly there is a lot of sentiment against it.

I'm not agreeing with it but that doesn't make UKGC (or European AML directives) to change their mind. That's just what thei in practice expect casinos be able to show in audit that they have completed EDD measures and collected enough information. It's not only UKGC (even though they at the moment are most interested about these as regulator but MGA have made huge step forward quite lately and are not really that "lazy" in their audits either) but AML regulations which businesses like online casinos have to follow.

Online casinos does present high AML risk, people do wager loads of money through them, it would be different if nobody never withdrew anything but only depositing, then there wouldn't be much risk just accepting money from people but once you pay anything back, you need to be sure you not helping any suspicious activities.

No single casino operator want to do these, it fcking big cost even to have MLRO and compliance team, then after their salaries, they don't bring in any money but make players leave (or even close accounts when not satisfying documents are not provided) but that's one business expence what have to exist, cost money and customers but other option would be continuing penalties and lost of license at some point.

I bet casinos happily would donate million pounds to that lobbyist who would get them out of AML monitoring, just nobody good enough haven't been found yet

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Sadly the UKGC have made it the casinos job.

It must be a complete ballache for them trying to cover all bases, with the threat of heavy fines and to be honest as a player, all this SOW crap has taken the joy of a withdrawal away, because you wondering if it's your time. As i have found out 3 times.

I'm of the opinion it should be the remit of the banking institutions to ensure accounts are fully verified and audited I.e the place where the money is being deposited from.

 

[Slottery]

I'm of the opinion it should be the remit of the banking institutions to ensure accounts are fully verified and audited I.e the place where the money is being deposited from.

You should promote this approach more, i'm sure if you could make change to AML regulations that all other businesses could throw away all AML monitoring and EDD verifications they have now, you would make a very rich man by receiving some 100% legal money from many companies for lobbying it through.

Unfortunately at the moment it as opinion is same level than earth is flat.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

You should promote this approach more, i'm sure if you could make change to AML regulations that all other businesses could throw away all AML monitoring and EDD verifications they have now, you would make a very rich man by receiving some 100% legal money from many companies for lobbying it through.

Unfortunately at the moment it as opinion is same level than earth is flat.

But it's more nuanced than that. Of course AML regulations need to be in place for businesses that handle large amounts of money. However, do you not think that these practices should be exercised where there is a clear pattern of fraudulent activity? This allows the overwhelming majority of customers who aren't up to nefarious doings some normality.

Of course the main onus should be on the financial institution where the money has come from in the first instance. Nip it in the bud at source?

 

[Slottery]

But it's more nuanced than that. Of course AML regulations need to be in place for businesses that handle large amounts of money. However, do you not think that these practices should be exercised where there is a clear pattern of fraudulent activity? This allows the overwhelming majority of customers who aren't up to nefarious doings some normality.

Of course the main onus should be on the financial institution where the money has come from in the first instance. Nip it in the bud at source?

Yes, but what i think doesn't make any difference to these regulations which are like they are.

If you would be only forced to recognize some clear patterns what most of writers here would recognize, that wouldn't make much difference, people who do have illegal source of income (was it tax avoiding or what ever else) are not laundering their money by betting red and black in roulette, that was possible 15 years ago.

Now if you wanna wager your funds through casino, you do it way that there's no difference compare to normal customers gameplay and deposit patterns, it's not that difficult if you think well what you do. That's reason why normal honest people have to show proof of their hard earned cash, if they wish to play online casinos. I don't agree it should be like this but what i think doesn't make any difference for regulations.

Banks can't guarantine (and they are not expected either) that all money deposit and paid out by them is from legal sources and if you deposit few thousands to your friends account, no questions asked etc.... Casinos are not finance institution in that way that people would get their salaries and pay their bills from casino account but are just place where people lose money but also get huge amount of transactions in and out and active players wager loads of money in year, if you let somebody deposit £200k in year without any DD, you do fail your responsibilities. It doesn't matter if that same person have withdrew more than deposit if you don't have proof of that audit trail that it is really same funds redeposited (if you are not honest person and want to use casino to wager some no daylight funds, you would be more than happy to have one of your few hundred accounts to have big win and then be able to wager huge amounts through that if you could be sure that question wouldn't be asked as they assume you still use your winnings).

When we travel from Schengen area to UK, all people are asked to show their passports even it's much much much less than 1% who have some issues for passing that check but still all have to do it. There are loads of examples where everybody have to show some proof of something where huge majority are totally honest people and haven't done anything wrong, these checks just being there to stop people doing it.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Sadly the UKGC have made it the casinos job.

It must be a complete ballache for them trying to cover all bases, with the threat of heavy fines and to be honest as a player, all this SOW crap has taken the joy of a withdrawal away, because you wondering if it's your time. As i have found out 3 times.

Yeah when you make a withdrawal and your account is blocked as they are undertaking security checks! As I said before this is clearly the beginning of the end for online casinos now. So all down to the high street people will go!

 

[johnnymcc1966]

Think they were happy down that route and to continue down it until 3 people started killing themselves every 2 days, which doesn't happen with job losses/separations. Agree that its a mental health issue but there is no health service in the UK to deal with it, after decades of austerity. Its only goin to get worse which is why they have to be seen to be doin something, and what were seeing now is the results.

I completely disagree with that.There are suicides for all sorts of reasons and most of the time the causes are unknown. I don't know how you seem so sure that suicides from gambling are more so than other reasons such as losing your job and house and family simply because a company wants to move your job to China for a fraction of the cost and all the other things that come along in life. I.of course accept that some people get into debt through gambling too much but its just far too easy to blame gambling and ignore everything else that causes depression and suicidal tendencies.

 

[johnnymcc1966]

I'm of the opinion it should be the remit of the banking institutions to ensure accounts are fully verified and audited I.e the place where the money is being deposited from.

I agree with this but after allowing the whole world to be brought to its knees by gambling away most of its assets through risky financial deals I wouldn't trust them to check if my car tyres were correctly inflated.

 

[Halvor]

You do realise slot machines in themselves r designed to be addictive?

And yet the vast majority of people do not develope gambling issues. Should alcohol be outright banned because some people get addicted?

I'd also like to add that the intention of the games are entertainment and having players return. The purpose is not having people gambling everything they got away.

 

[dealer wins]

Rumour has it that the UKGC are going to impise loss limits of as little as 100 pounds a month. This would go in line with the £2 max stake which is coming in next year anyway. Looks like the industry is coming to an end in the UK which is sad as there are some people that like to go on and have a flutter. Not sure if this will apply to football betting too? The end of online casinos in the UK??

The only reason I dont think they will do that is it will leave them with nothing to regulate, and cost them their own jobs!

 

[coolrunnings19]

The only reason I dont think they will do that is it will leave them with nothing to regulate, and cost them their own jobs!

I think they will as some of the casinos will still fail to comply with the regulations. They may in fact be busier as there will be more for them to check that the casinos are complying. The casinos will make less money and if they get heavy fines it could be the nail in the coffin for them. I cannot see them sticking around for that long after that. It is only thanks to brexit and covid that the new rules haven't come into force yet

 

[SpinUk]

You have to remember that money laundering is not about making 100% of the money clean. Any clean money is clear, provable legitimate cash. The loss is just the costs of their illegitimate business.

So roulette (for instance) is high risk for casinos, because it's a simple way to launder with little risk for the fraudster. Start with a grand of dirty money, leave with £400 in clean money.

Online casinos are even higher risk, because realistically the checks are not as simple as in-person.

No actual money launderer would consider a 60% loss - not worth it. 20% max and even then would be judged as very poor. Also, its not an effective way to launder money as there is a only a single layer of input and output that is easily identifiable, before the integration stage. The checks are actually more often used for proceeds of crime flagging (stolen funds). Thats factually why you always hear about someone stealing from their employer to fund a habit all the time and never hear about any money laundering arrests based around this method, basically because its such a bad method.

 

[sandman748]

I actually had Twin send me an email the other day asking me if I had a problem because Ive had a bad run of luck and more deposits than usual. They advised me I should set a loss limit which I declined.

The whole idea is flawed. A loss limit is supposed to protect someone that can't help but deposit more money but if that person hit a loss limit at their favorite legit casino, they just deposit somewhere else. Even if all the legit places were to somehow coordinate in such a way that you could only deposit x amount among all of them, it would only force addicts to start depositing at shady places that ignore the law and likely never pay out. In the end the addict is worse off.

It's really just the government trying to say they've done things to protect the player when in all reality it's just a show. The government in canada makes billions in gaming revenue and yet someone that actually needs help has to wait months to years in order to get government sponsored therapy. But those limits sure are effective.

 

[EkJR]

Before I went back on Gamstop I had a casino set a limit of £500 a month. Out of curiosity I asked what would be needed for them to look at increasing it. They said...3 months bank statements, contract of employment, ID, payslips covering the last 6 months. Thought they were joking but it appears to be happening a lot of places now and they are also applying group limits at that so you cant just go to say Playzee and lose 500 then onto Playgrand as the limit applies across the board.

Actually not overly critical of that approach tbh. The ridiculous amount of docs required and the weeks it takes them to look at that stuff is more the issue.

 

[k6kaysix]

And now he’s been booted off Playgrand with a similar limit!

 

[Kroffe]

Its really horrible how these streamers are being treated.

 

[dunover]

Its really horrible how these streamers are being treated.

View attachment 145935

I tried my hand at streaming last week, amazing bonus, slots you cannot lose on and a multi-million x bet hits were flowing in!

 

[coolrunnings19]

2 pound online stake limit on it's way this year once they review the 2005 Gambling Act. Goodbye UK online sector. But many people play 20 40 60p stakes anyway so they will still play. Just the ones playing more than 2 pound a stake will either have to reduce the stake or not play!

 

[irish-ranger]

2 pound online stake limit on it's way this year once they review the 2005 Gambling Act. Goodbye UK online sector. But many people play 20 40 60p stakes anyway so they will still play. Just the ones playing more than 2 pound a stake will either have to reduce the stake or not play!

Obviously you have evidence to support this bollock??

 

[coolrunnings19]

That is what is proposed. Try reading what they are expecting to do. If you type in expected changes on Google to the Gambling Act that is what they are going to push for and it looks like it will go through. Been on the cards for a while, just like FOBTs were. They got delayed then came in. Changes are coming.

 

[colinsunderland]

That is what is proposed. Try reading what they are expecting to do. If you type in expected changes on Google to the Gambling Act that is what they are going to push for and it looks like it will go through. Been on the cards for a while, just like FOBTs were. They got delayed then came in. Changes are coming.

I very much doubt they will do that, it would be suicide for the UK gaming industry, and therefore for the UKGC too. I would be surprised if there was a single non uk bookmaker left operating in the UK in 5 years if they do that. They are also well aware it will just lead to people playing at unlicensed casinos

 

[coolrunnings19]

I can see your point and it is a valid one and something that they are aware of. It is a balancing act. They want people to play safely and they need to bring the legislation in line with the digital age. Too many suicides and too many problem gamblers. We can see how the NHS gets overwhelmed especially lately so they will have taken that into account too. This is something that is preventable and the NHS is a key player in the decision making process as is the commission and safer gambling organisations. They did it in the high street. They will do it online. They never shout about anything unless they want to do it. I suppose they will want 2 pounds max stake but they may have to fight to get it increased to 5 or 10 but keeping it at what it is with no limits will not happen. They will bring in monthly wagering limits as well. Unless you can prove you can afford to do 10 quid spins by showing you earn 200k a year then they may let you. If you are on 30k or 40k a year they won't let you do it and will cap players. Germany have brought in stake limits and they seem to be working. They got rid of credit cards. Nothing lasts forever, the casinos have had their day. Every sector does. Some casinos have already reduced the max stake on some games like Dead or Alive 2 by Netent is now 3 or 3.60 max stake so that is probably a sign that it is coming sooner rather than later

 

[shadow123]

Positive we will have £2 stake limit this year, makes sense that they will take the simplistic view that online stakes should
be the same as high st bookies and arcades.Unfortunately it will kill the online market stone dead if it is applied to table games
as well as slots.

 

[coolrunnings19]

I don't think it can be applied to table games. How would people play them? I know roulette if you go more than 2 pounds it gives you a bar and if you land in the green section it gives you a spin. What will happen to big bets like 20 30 40 50 pounds high rollers? They will either just go or you can spin a 2 pound stake to see if you get entry into it. But I think that would defeat the point. I can't see why online wouldn't mirror in shops. That is their aim. But people seem to forget you can soon go through a couple of thousand in an hour or so just by doing 2 pound a stake. They are also thinking about 30 seconds between each spin but that would be a bit too much!

 

[09237653]

Rizk are the pettiest casino I know of, I deposited 30 cashed out 45 and next day account locked and must prove source of wealth for a £30 deposit, I spent more than that on a takeaway the other day and the Chinese restaurant didn't ask for id or wage slips or anything.

anyhow the short of it : screw rizk stay away from these jokers.

 

[coolrunnings19]

And they don't think max stake limit will be lowered to 2 quid ono? The casinos will just go to other jurisdictions that is all that will happen. The UKGC will still have a lot of work to do as many will stay as they will still provide a service. Just think 15 years ago there were just land based bookies and casinos. If someone wants to eat big go to a land based casino. Easy. Online needs to be regulated more as there is nobody to monitor what you are doing on your own in your room and they can't intervene. In shops staff look at body language behaviour...and can intervene. That is why they will bring in 2 pound max online been on the cards for ages. They are lucky it hasn't happened already.

 

[Kenji85]

In shops staff look at body language behaviour...and can intervene.

Do they though? In UK I mean?

I ask purely out of curiosity.

I've definitely walked into bookies in Ireland at11am placed my days bets and returned at 6pm to collect to see the same persons there punting on virtual dogs,car racing,soccer. Whatever is off next.

I've never once seen a staff member intervene even though it's obvious said persons must be chasing and losing beyond their means at some point. Its not possible to stay all day every day and win.

I know the FOBTs in UK are a big bone of contention. It's not so much the case here as all betting terminals are for sports betting only and often capped at less than they'll take over the counter.
Anyway rambling post over

 

[colinsunderland]

And they don't think max stake limit will be lowered to 2 quid ono? The casinos will just go to other jurisdictions that is all that will happen. The UKGC will still have a lot of work to do as many will stay as they will still provide a service. Just think 15 years ago there were just land based bookies and casinos. If someone wants to eat big go to a land based casino. Easy. Online needs to be regulated more as there is nobody to monitor what you are doing on your own in your room and they can't intervene. In shops staff look at body language behaviour...and can intervene. That is why they will bring in 2 pound max online been on the cards for ages. They are lucky it hasn't happened already.

What happened with you dispute with Broadway Gaming?

 

[EkJR]

It's either £2 stakes or they will start making it even harder. There is so much pressure on them to act due to the fact the industry was basically unregulated for years and has caused a public health issue!

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Limiting to £2 stake would be a massive drop of the ball by the UKGC (there have been a few already). They are like the parasite that are determined to kill the host that feeds them.

If I deposit £50 it should be solely my decision whether I do 10 £5 spins or 100 50p ones. My money, my choice.

 

[colinsunderland]

It's either £2 stakes or they will start making it even harder. There is so much pressure on them to act due to the fact the industry was basically unregulated for years and has caused a public health issue!

I am positive it won't be £2. FOTB's are different to online in that FOTB max win is £500, it isn't online.
There will be more restrictions but I'm certain there won't be a blanket £2 max stake across everything.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Christ I hope nobody decides to have a try at slots after watching that thinking thats possible.

Edit: My morning posting is getting worse. Ive posted this in the wrong bloomin thread. (weird wiggle smile emoji)

 

[Slottery]

Would be really interesting to see new record of nannyism and £2 max bet for everything, from lottery to sports Happily for people who want to to keep their slotting and betting there are more and more options outside of certain regulation if these regulations get ridicilous.

 

[coolrunnings19]

What happened with you dispute with Broadway Gaming?

Hello mate hope you had a good new year!! Still ongoing i am afraid! UKGC not said anything either!

 

[coolrunnings19]

Do they though? In UK I mean?

I ask purely out of curiosity.

I've definitely walked into bookies in Ireland at11am placed my days bets and returned at 6pm to collect to see the same persons there punting on virtual dogs,car racing,soccer. Whatever is off next.

I've never once seen a staff member intervene even though it's obvious said persons must be chasing and losing beyond their means at some point. Its not possible to stay all day every day and win.

I know the FOBTs in UK are a big bone of contention. It's not so much the case here as all betting terminals are for sports betting only and often capped at less than they'll take over the counter.
Anyway rambling post over

I have seen staff ask people on FOBTs to calm down and then leave if they get baf. I have also seen people been told they can't load anymore money on machines. I have also seen people being told to go out and get some food as they have been on there for hours. Some do tell you but not all, but at home you get nobody to oversee anything.

 

[coolrunnings19]

I am positive it won't be £2. FOTB's are different to online in that FOTB max win is £500, it isn't online.
There will be more restrictions but I'm certain there won't be a blanket £2 max stake across everything.

Well if they bring it down to 2 pounds then the max win will have to be 500 too surely? Unless they change that aswell? I doubt they will allow max stake at more than 5 or even 10 at a push. I dont think the MPs will allow it and they will have the final say. The people on that front are pretty much against it all anyway so they will push hard. The fear is obviously unregulated casinos being turned to by punters!

 

[Louforbes85]

Rizk are the pettiest casino I know of, I deposited 30 cashed out 45 and next day account locked and must prove source of wealth for a £30 deposit, I spent more than that on a takeaway the other day and the Chinese restaurant didn't ask for id or wage slips or anything.

anyhow the short of it : screw rizk stay away from these jokers.

They did this to me just before Christmas, I sent them a wage slip that more than covers the poultry sum I deposited with them (less than £50 a month), they then wanted 6 months bank statements totally unredacted and all my PayPal transactions, needless to say I told them to whistle and closed my account. Last time I checked I'm in my (almost) late 30s and a fully fledged grown up. I would rather not play.

 

[colinsunderland]

Well if they bring it down to 2 pounds then the max win will have to be 500 too surely? Unless they change that aswell? I doubt they will allow max stake at more than 5 or even 10 at a push. I dont think the MPs will allow it and they will have the final say. The people on that front are pretty much against it all anyway so they will push hard. The fear is obviously unregulated casinos being turned to by punters!

no, my point was that max win is £500, so betting £100 means the max you can win is 5 x stake, whereas online betting £100 on say Book Of Ra, you could win half a million. I'm not saying there will no max stake, but would be very surprised if it's £2.

 

[colinsunderland]

They did this to me just before Christmas, I sent them a wage slip that more than covers the poultry sum I deposited with them (less than £50 a month), they then wanted 6 months bank statements totally unredacted and all my PayPal transactions, needless to say I told them to whistle and closed my account. Last time I checked I'm in my (almost) late 30s and a fully fledged grown up. I would rather not play.

Yep, Rizk seem to be the new Casumo. I would advise people to stay away from them now.

 

[coolrunnings19]

no, my point was that max win is £500, so betting £100 means the max you can win is 5 x stake, whereas online betting £100 on say Book Of Ra, you could win half a million. I'm not saying there will no max stake, but would be very surprised if it's £2.

Yes mate I see your point, and it is a valid one. Nobody would play 100 a spin just to win x5 jackpot. I don't think the max stake will be max 100 pounds though. 2 pounds would be obviously reasonable but if they want to say set thr jackpot at x200 then perhaps a 5 pounds max stake so that the jackpot is 1000 pounds? The problem for them is the higher they set the jackpot the more people will play them and then encounter issues once more. I spoke to a couple of guys from Latvia and they said that the machines in this country are very good as they are just 500 jackpot. In Latvia they are much higher and the higher they are the more people will spend. Here if the jackpot is 500 the normal person will put say 50 quid in and think if I get it, then it is a x10 profit overall (if they are lucky). I should imagine the max stake will be agreed on somewhere between 2 and 10. It would be surprising if it was 10 or 2 but it still could be. It is a strange world we live in!