Pokerstars and Sky

[EkJR]

So I put up a post last month regarding this group. They operate on separate licences. I blocked myself for life from Sky a couple of years ago.

Anyway, did the usual thing, checked the UKGC logo etc and Stars was standalone. Opened an account lost about 480 quid over 2 days. I go to deposit again and I get an 'alert' to say my account has been restricted pending an investigation into a possible previous self exclusion. A day later, I get emailed by them to say because I had an existing exclusion on Sky Vegas that I would be excluded on Pokerstars. Fair enough...but now Pokerstars are not returning the deposits for that 48 hour period suggesting that all betting activity was valid. In terms of general SE policy this is not the case and bets should be voided and returned to the player.

I will pursue this one with the UKGC, but has anyone had a similar experience here? They are not on the same licence so this may be an issue but for me its ethically very poor practice.

 

[Slottery]

IIRC, it's not long time ago discussed here that obligation is to check self-exclusions on license level (think it was thread about Kindred where 32Red still is operating under other license than like Unibet) but can make also decision to exclude players at anytime if they see there is self-exclusion in other license but are not obligated to do it.

For regulation point of view, don't believe anything wrong happened there, but fully agree that it's not really good practise, especially if you are not in process to add both in same license shortly and it's just temporary thing.

If they don't make automatic gross checks, then they could let you play there even realize self-exclusion or do what happened now, exclude account when seeing one.

 

[EkJR]

IIRC, it's not long time ago discussed here that obligation is to check self-exclusions on license level (think it was thread about Kindred where 32Red still is operating under other license than like Unibet) but can make also decision to exclude players at anytime if they see there is self-exclusion in other license but are not obligated to do it.

For regulation point of view, don't believe anything wrong happened there, but fully agree that it's not really good practise, especially if you are not in process to add both in same license shortly and it's just temporary thing.

If they don't make automatic gross checks, then they could let you play there even realize self-exclusion or do what happened now, exclude account when seeing one.

For me it's the time delay. 48 hours before its flagged. Why? If they are in the same group and share the same data across group(as stated) then why did it take 48 hours where a 'potentially at risk player' could have gambled away huge sums. If they had done it before a deposit I could accept it, no harm done. Wonder what would have happened had I won? I can 100000% guarantee they would be rushing over themselves to return the deposits.

 

[thr0b]

It sounds like they would’ve paid out if you’d won - different licence so the block being transferred is a business decision rather than a license obligation.

If they’d chosen not to pay out, then you would’ve been in a good position to raise a claim against them here or through the regulator.

 

[EkJR]

It sounds like they would’ve paid out if you’d won - different licence so the block being transferred is a business decision rather than a license obligation.

If they’d chosen not to pay out, then you would’ve been in a good position to raise a claim against them here or through the regulator.

They wouldnt have paid out, its quite clear. I'll get the part in their terms which mentions it. That's why I am pursuing it.

 

[EkJR]

They gave quoted two parts of their terms. One which was not there when this all happened. The other basically says they accept no liability if they find an SE within their group.


4.5

(CHANGES EFFECTIVE MAY 14TH 2020)


you are not currently subject to a self-exclusion from a Betfair, Paddy Power, Sky Betting and Gaming (which includes Sky Bet, Sky Vegas, Sky Casino, Sky Poker, Sky Lotto and Sky Bingo) account or an account for any Full Tilt or PokerStars product, you have not signed up to a national self-exclusion register (such as GAMSTOP) which excludes you from gambling, and you will inform us as soon as possible if you enter into a self-exclusion agreement with any gambling provider;

 

[Slottery]

For me it's the time delay. 48 hours before its flagged. Why? If they are in the same group and share the same data across group(as stated) then why did it take 48 hours where a 'potentially at risk player' could have gambled away huge sums. If they had done it before a deposit I could accept it, no harm done. Wonder what would have happened had I won? I can 100000% guarantee they would be rushing over themselves to return the deposits.

Yeah, it sucks to be like that, i think it was @shadow123 who got same with Kindred not long time ago, just referred to that. There this should be solved as 32Red will be under same license and this then stop happening.

About Stars and Sky, no idea about their plans, but i would believe they haven't break their obligations by letting you play due these separate licenses. It doesn't make much sense like this when they spot them afterwards when player already deposit and played.

I believe that they would have to pay winnings due to this really same reason, they can't refuse them because SE was in different license, if willing use that as reason, they would need stop everyone before deposit.

edit: Ok, never read their T&C:s, but wouldn't be sure that they wouldn't have to pay winnings if they accepted deposits, but no idea how fair they are in their decisions.

 

[EkJR]

This is the main term quoted.

1.5

If you are excluded from any Sites or any other websites owned and/or operated by The Stars Interactive Group you are not permitted to create or to attempt to create any other account on any of our Sites. We take no responsibility for, and exclude any and all forms of liability whatsoever, in cases where you violate the terms of this Agreement by opening or attempting to open multiple accounts with us and/or by providing false and/or misleading data/personal details and/or attempting to bypass limits, functionalities, exclusions and/or other responsible gaming tools previously set and/or requested by you on any of The Stars Interactive Group’s websites.

So they would not have paid out a penny.

 

[EkJR]

Yeah, it sucks to be like that, i think it was @shadow123 who got same with Kindred not long time ago, just referred to that. There this should be solved as 32Red will be under same license and this then stop happening.

About Stars and Sky, no idea about their plans, but i would believe they haven't break their obligations by letting you play due these separate licenses. It doesn't make much sense like this when they spot them afterwards when player already deposit and played.

I believe that they would have to pay winnings due to this really same reason, they can't refuse them because SE was in different license, if willing use that as reason, they would need stop everyone before deposit.

edit: Ok, never read their T&C:s, but wouldn't be sure that they wouldn't have to pay winnings if they accepted deposits, but no idea how fair they are in their decisions.

See their "new terms" I quoted above. They state that you cant play if you have an exclusion with any of those stated brands.

 

[Slottery]

If they do that in practice, it shouldn't really be allowed and really worth to raise to be reviewed is it ok to leave this kind of loopholes where not bothering to check these upon registration but then for cofiscating winnings. Would have been interesting if you would have won something.

If they refuse to pay winnings, they should refuse to take deposits as well, at least that's how regulation shoull be.

 

[thr0b]

This is the main term quoted.

1.5

If you are excluded from any Sites or any other websites owned and/or operated by The Stars Interactive Group you are not permitted to create or to attempt to create any other account on any of our Sites. We take no responsibility for, and exclude any and all forms of liability whatsoever, in cases where you violate the terms of this Agreement by opening or attempting to open multiple accounts with us and/or by providing false and/or misleading data/personal details and/or attempting to bypass limits, functionalities, exclusions and/or other responsible gaming tools previously set and/or requested by you on any of The Stars Interactive Group’s websites.

So they would not have paid out a penny.

I read that slightly differently - they accept no liability for your losses if you register after excluding at another brand. As in, they would not need to refund you, as there’s no breach of their licence in accepting the deposit.

 

[shadow123]

These checks really should be done on registration or ar least before deposits are allowed,would save a lot of pain.Some of these groups have many casinos, I would never have connected Betfair with Sky Vegas.
They dont half make life difficult for the honest player just trying to find somewhere to chill.

 

[thr0b]

Yeah, if they're potentially enforcing wooly contract terms, it's worth checking if you've excluded at the other brands. I had a couple of long-dormant accounts that were suspended due to dormancy which I've just asked to be re-enabled just in case. No intention to play at those other brands, but don't want any risk at my favoured one.

 

[shadow123]

I recently joined Playojo and made sure I did everything by the book,sent docs in without being asked to
make sure there would be no problem at withdrawal time ( or as they call it the money train).
I didnt deposit until the account and docs were fully verfied and had assurance that I was not excluded
from any other casino in the group.No problems so far except that the constant nagging messages made me
think I should set deposit limits which I did ,managed to lock deposits for a week as I had already deposited
more than the weekly limit I set and it works over the last 7 days.
Bit peed off as they are running a Yggdrasil torny which I love but cant take part in.

 

[thr0b]

Someone likes Yggdrasil?

 

[EkJR]

I read that slightly differently - they accept no liability for your losses if you register after excluding at another brand. As in, they would not need to refund you, as there’s no breach of their licence in accepting the deposit.

In conjunction with this new "term" they are essentially saying that. Have actually just checked, I registered on the 15th so by their own T&Cs an account shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. This is the basis for any discussion with the UKGC or ADR. Not bothered about the money so much as I'm peeved at being excluded by them after playing in good faith with no clue that the exclusion at Sky would happen there. This for me, particularly with this new term, should mean an account opening would be blocked. Anyway, I'll update in due course.

 

[EkJR]

I recently joined Playojo and made sure I did everything by the book,sent docs in without being asked to
make sure there would be no problem at withdrawal time ( or as they call it the money train).
I didnt deposit until the account and docs were fully verfied and had assurance that I was not excluded
from any other casino in the group.No problems so far except that the constant nagging messages made me
think I should set deposit limits which I did ,managed to lock deposits for a week as I had already deposited
more than the weekly limit I set and it works over the last 7 days.
Bit peed off as they are running a Yggdrasil torny which I love but cant take part in.

Everything was done, all verified etc. No hint of any problems at all until they restricted the account out of the blue then excluded it.

 

[shadow123]

Yup, Valley of the Gods bumped up a £100 bonus to £500 yesterday,other games not brilliant but love the
way the tornys work

 

[Playford7]

These checks really should be done on registration or ar least before deposits are allowed,would save a lot of pain.Some of these groups have many casinos, I would never have connected Betfair with Sky Vegas.
They dont half make life difficult for the honest player just trying to find somewhere to chill.

Are betfair and sky Vegas under the same licence? If so I’ve got a problem...

 

[shadow123]

Everything was done, all verified etc. No hint of any problems at all until they restricted the account out of the blue then excluded it.

That happenned to me at Unibet (not until I had lost £200)

 

[thr0b]

Are betfair and sky Vegas under the same licence? If so I’ve got a problem...

Same ownership, different licences.

This is the problem with casinos changing ownership - and Sky has changed hands a few times in the last recent years - it should not be allowed to retrospectively pass exclusions over cross-licence following a sale. The layman doesn't understand who the Flutter Group are.

There has to be a better way.

 

[shadow123]

Are betfair and sky Vegas under the same licence? If so I’ve got a problem...

No idea just found out they were part of the same group by reading an earlier posting.
Unibet and 32red were on different licences but I still got excluded

 

[Playford7]

Same ownership, different licences.

This is the problem with casinos changing ownership - and Sky has changed hands a few times in the last recent years - it should not be allowed to retrospectively pass exclusions over cross-licence following a sale. The layman doesn't understand who the Flutter Group are.

There has to be a better way.

In 2016 i excluded from betfair, been using sky Vegas since.
will this cause a issue you think at some point?..

 

[EkJR]

Are betfair and sky Vegas under the same licence? If so I’ve got a problem...

Not yet but looks like it's happening. That term 4.5 basically allows them to make group exclusions as it's now there for all to see.

 

[EkJR]

Same ownership, different licences.

This is the problem with casinos changing ownership - and Sky has changed hands a few times in the last recent years - it should not be allowed to retrospectively pass exclusions over cross-licence following a sale. The layman doesn't understand who the Flutter Group are.

There has to be a better way.

The change of terms seems to allude to anyone excluded at any of the other brands also being excluded there.