Casino Complaint responsible gambling self exclusion fail help needed please

teddybarko

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Location
uk
Hi all - newbie here with a question..

Over the last year i have been online gambling really heavy, self excluding from numerous sites ect due to problem gambling.. due to this i have encountered several issues... I opened an account with a allslotsmobilecasino, deposited a few hundred quid and won £2000, i tried to withdraw this and my account got locked & i contacted them to which they responded with... you have previously self excluded from one of our partner sites (wild jack mobile casino) which we are linked to therefore your account has been closed and any deposits you made will be returned to your card & any winnings will be deducted. I felt terrible and cheated after this but in the end i had to accept it as they didnt budge.

Ever since this i have been really careful on checking who is partnered by who before opening an account, until the other night... I hadn't gambled a penny for 2 months, then got the urge for a game of roulette, so i opened an account with 7Regal who i had never heard of, started depositing and playing, after a few hours i was down over £5000 , savings, overdraft all gone! The next day i went to the 7Regal website to look for a contact email to ask for my account to be self excluded & i noticed that 7Regal is owned and run by Winner Casino.. I remembered having a Winner casino account 2 months back and self excluding myself from them permanently. This has made me believe that i should have not been allowed to open an account with 7Regal and that my deposits should be voided.. so i contacted them and explained, to which they closed my 7Regal account immediately, i heard back from them today and their response was... when i self excluded my Winner casino account i didnt tell them i had a problem with gambling, so on this occasion none of my deposits will be void. I explained to them that self exclusion is put in place to protect problem gamblers but they says many players self exclude for various other reasons.

Im a genuine guy, not attempting to cheat anyone, but i feel that on both occasions i have been cheated. What do yous think of this? Have i got a case to get my money back from 7Regal or am i fighting a lost cause?

I know the main problem is myself & i need to have more will power , but im sure a few of yous out there will agree that its easier said than done.
thanks for taking the time to read this and hopefully give me some advice.
 

rockycatt

meistercatt
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Location
Boston
its probably ethical as used car dealers while some the minority are fair and honest there are more than those that will dig the eye balls out of your head the minute you hit the deck

my advise to you is to hook up with GA or another approved recovery group [ honestly my heart goes out for you ]

but this is hard facts of life were chatting about

may god steer you clear of this demon R C
 

rainmaker

I'm not a penguin
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Location
-
.

I would say you are chasing a lost case.

You played and lost. Get over it and seek help. Yes, it may be that this casino not should have accepted you a a customer (I am not familiar with the relationship between these casinos), but they did and you decided to play. It is also worth mentioning that casinos in general may have the same owners, but are operated separately.

Seek help and stay away from casinos and forums like Casinomeister.

Good luck :thumbsup:
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
You lost the $5000 fair and square.

Time to get to your nearest GA meeting, where they will teach you about accepting responsibility for your actions.

Yes, but then he won 2000 of it back. It seems the rule is different depending on whether you win or lose.

He lost, but he is responsible and should not get his money back.

He won, of course the bets should be void and the deposits returned.

This is simply a risk free gamble for the casino. If winnings are voided if a prior self exclusion is discovered, then so are the losses. To let the casino have it both ways in their favour does not give them any incentive to improve their procedures for blocking problem gamblers right from the outset.


In any case, Wild Jack was sold by the JF group a couple of years ago, and yet suddenly it is still part of them, WTF is going on:confused:

Self exclusion should work better than this, and where the casinos are owned by the same group, there should be NO lag between self excluding at one partner casino, and being blocked upon registration at the others.

They CAN do it, and DO block players within seconds of registering when they have been flagged as frauds or "bonus abusers" at partner casinos. It seems the technologies are there for near instant blocking, it is a reluctance to implement them that causes the problems.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
Yes, but then he won 2000 of it back. It seems the rule is different depending on whether you win or lose.

He lost, but he is responsible and should not get his money back.

He won, of course the bets should be void and the deposits returned.

This is simply a risk free gamble for the casino. If winnings are voided if a prior self exclusion is discovered, then so are the losses. To let the casino have it both ways in their favour does not give them any incentive to improve their procedures for blocking problem gamblers right from the outset.


In any case, Wild Jack was sold by the JF group a couple of years ago, and yet suddenly it is still part of them, WTF is going on:confused:

Self exclusion should work better than this, and where the casinos are owned by the same group, there should be NO lag between self excluding at one partner casino, and being blocked upon registration at the others.

They CAN do it, and DO block players within seconds of registering when they have been flagged as frauds or "bonus abusers" at partner casinos. It seems the technologies are there for near instant blocking, it is a reluctance to implement them that causes the problems.

Yes, but they are different groups.....it isn't the same group applying different standards to wins vs losses.

Personally, my view is that ALL bets in BOTH cases were valid. He should have been paid his $2000 winnings and had his account closed. The casino should have ensured he wasn't able to signup with another related property......but once he did and the bets were made, they were valid and the end result should be honored.

It's important to note that the methods used to lock out players at signup are limited. In most cases it is email based or IP based, and these can be avoided simply by using a different email or obtaining a new IP.

The argument about the reason for self exclusion is an interesting one......does the actual reason matter or not? If a player signs up with a related property, is that tacit revocation of their self exclusion request? Regardless, once a bet is placed it should be honored either way.

IMO, the first casino got it wrong, and the second casino got it right.

The reason most casinos will not refund losses is obvious. You only need to see the MO of fraudsters exposed here over the years to realise what a pot of gold it would be to every scammer on the net......exclude yourself, find a way to play again and it will be risk-free. It's a very slippery slope.
 

teddybarko

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Location
uk
The reason im struggling to come to terms with their decision is they told me my deposits would have been voided if i told winner casino i had a gambling problem rather that just asking them to self exclude me. Self exclusion to my understanding is for problem gamblers.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
The reason im struggling to come to terms with their decision is they told me my deposits would have been voided if i told winner casino i had a gambling problem rather that just asking them to self exclude me. Self exclusion to my understanding is for problem gamblers.

No not only for them. I ask casinos to close my account from time to time. I don't want to have so many open at once. By closing them I don't recieve any mails and are not tempted to play everywhere. I can ask for a certain time if I want, but mostly by just closing the accounts I can go back again whenever I chose to, just like you did.
 

PNEFOREVER2

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Location
Preston,lancs
Makes you wonder if he had won £5000 would he have been paid? And would he have been reimbursed at the first casino had he lost?
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
Makes you wonder if he had won £5000 would he have been paid? And would he have been reimbursed at the first casino had he lost?

He got his deposits back from the first casino, and yes, he would probably have been paid in the second one since he hadn't told them about any gambling problems.
 

PNEFOREVER2

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Location
Preston,lancs
He got his deposits back from the first casino, and yes, he would probably have been paid in the second one since he hadn't told them about any gambling problems.

I need to read more carefully :D

As for the bolded part I'm sceptical,nobody will ever know if that casino knew or not about his problem being in connection with another casino he was self excluded from though.

However I do agree that you should take responsibilty for your own actions,maybe this will be a wake up call to get some help.....?
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
I need to read more carefully :D

As for the bolded part I'm sceptical,nobody will ever know if that casino knew or not about his problem being in connection with another casino he was self excluded from though.

However I do agree that you should take responsibilty for your own actions,maybe this will be a wake up call to get some help.....?

I maybe also have to find out if there is any difference between self exclude and just closing an account:oops:
I did that at 3Dice thinking I wouldn't play there anymore, but when I wanted to open it again I found out I had to wait for three days. That was a chock:eek2:

If anyone with a gambling problem really wants to quit and are honest about why, then thats what they want.
If they don't tell the casino then they haven't made up their mind yet.
 

PNEFOREVER2

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Location
Preston,lancs
I maybe also have to find out if there is any difference between self exclude and just closing an account:oops:
I did that at 3Dice thinking I wouldn't play there anymore, but when I wanted to open it again I found out I had to wait for three days. That was a chock:eek2:

If anyone with a gambling problem really wants to quit and are honest about why, then thats what they want.
If they don't tell the casino then they haven't made up their mind yet.

But he already stated he had an account at another casino connected with this 7Regal.

If you asked to be self excluded from 32Red because of a gambling addiction then tried depositing at Dash tomorrow or another of their group wouldn't you expect to be excluded from all of them?

EDIT: I'm not saying he's right,he made the decision,personally if I lose £1000-nevermind £5000 in one session I'd be bringing up the contents of my last meal.

Just seems a tad shady where if you win you get your deposits back and we keep your winnings,if you lose,well tough luck.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
But he already stated he had an account at another casino connected with this 7Regal.

If you asked to be self excluded from 32Red because of a gambling addiction then tried depositing at Dash tomorrow or another of their group wouldn't you expect to be excluded from all of them?

EDIT: I'm not saying he's right,he made the decision,personally if I lose £1000-nevermind £5000 in one session I'd be bringing up the contents of my last meal.

Just seems a tad shady where if you win you get your deposits back and we keep your winnings,if you lose,well tough luck.

The first two casinos took their responsibility because he had told about his gambling problems when excluded from the first one.

The other two that were connected winner and 7Regal he had never told why. He just closed his account. That is why I believe he would have been paid if he had won, but they have no reason whatsoever to pay him any deposits back now.

I hope I haven't mixed everything up. I'm off to bed now:oops:
 

PNEFOREVER2

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Location
Preston,lancs
The first two casinos took their responsibility because he had told about his gambling problems when excluded from the first one.

The other two that were connected winner and 7Regal he had never told why. He just closed his account. That is why I believe he would have been paid if he had won, but they have no reason whatsoever to pay him any deposits back now.

I hope I haven't mixed everything up. I'm off to bed now:oops:

But he does state here he self excluded from winner casino 2 months ago.Didn't just close his account.

i noticed that 7Regal is owned and run by Winner Casino.. I remembered having a Winner casino account 2 months back and self excluding myself from them permanently.



Going by terms from Gamble Aware (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
) "self exclusion" usually means from six months to five years.

Not 2 months.

As the op is from the uk I also did a bit of looking on other sections of gambling like the lottery,seeing as GA only said "usually 6 months-5 years",and even the Health lottery and Gambling Commission-amongst others, also have 6 months as their minimum for self exclusion terms so you would think 6 months is the absolute minimum a person can be "permanently self excluded" for from a casino sporting the Gamble Aware symbol at the bottom of their website.

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

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

chuchu59

gambling addict
PABnonaccred
CAG
PABinit
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Location
SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
Yes, but they are different groups.....it isn't the same group applying different standards to wins vs losses.

Personally, my view is that ALL bets in BOTH cases were valid. He should have been paid his $2000 winnings and had his account closed. The casino should have ensured he wasn't able to signup with another related property......but once he did and the bets were made, they were valid and the end result should be honored.

It's important to note that the methods used to lock out players at signup are limited. In most cases it is email based or IP based, and these can be avoided simply by using a different email or obtaining a new IP.

The argument about the reason for self exclusion is an interesting one......does the actual reason matter or not? If a player signs up with a related property, is that tacit revocation of their self exclusion request? Regardless, once a bet is placed it should be honored either way.

IMO, the first casino got it wrong, and the second casino got it right.

The reason most casinos will not refund losses is obvious. You only need to see the MO of fraudsters exposed here over the years to realise what a pot of gold it would be to every scammer on the net......exclude yourself, find a way to play again and it will be risk-free. It's a very slippery slope.

I agree with you totally on this. The fact that the casino was unable to detect the player's self exclusion upon registration is not the player's fault and bets placed are valid which entails in winnings having to be honoured. No refunds on the second case though using the same logic.

Having said all this it does seem the OP has a serious gambling problem (savings, overdraft depleted) and a halt to gambling is a necessity lest his life be ruined. So this should now be the focus instead of continuously thinking of whether the casinos are cheating him in the 1st case or the 2nd one.
 

PNEFOREVER2

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Location
Preston,lancs
Is it just me or is there a simple fix to this-where one excludes themselves from one casino yet is still able to play at a sister or family casino (whatever terminology you guys use).

This being the casino that the player is self-excluded from sends a circular to its entire group of casinos with the IP address,card number,e-wallet details,bank details etc.

For example had winner casino sent a circular to all its casinos ie 7Regal with all his details this wouldn't have happened would it?

Unless the so called "self excluded" time had ran out-if true this being 2 months in which case,though they shouldn't be allowed to display the Gamble Aware sign,but bets should stand.
 

PNEFOREVER2

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Location
Preston,lancs
The reason im struggling to come to terms with their decision is they told me my deposits would have been voided if i told winner casino i had a gambling problem rather that just asking them to self exclude me. Self exclusion to my understanding is for problem gamblers.

It is - read the 3rd line of text after the title:

Self-exclusion

Operators must have procedures in place allowing you to self-exclude for a length of time – usually between six months and five years. A customer who has followed the procedure to request self-exclusion should be refused service and prevented from gambling.

If you think you are spending too much time or money gambling then ask staff for more information about this scheme.

If you are worried about online gambling then you can download a ‘site blocker’ such as Gamblock or Netnanny, which can block access to on line gambling sites.

What other reasons are there for that line being there-in that particular place under the words "self exclusion"?

Coincidence? You have an alcohol problem? Your nan has recently died? You have piles?


Pretty evident to anyone with half a brain for me.
 

Nifty29

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Location
Turn right, then right. then right again
It is - read the 3rd line of text after the title:

Self-exclusion

Operators must have procedures in place allowing you to self-exclude for a length of time – usually between six months and five years. A customer who has followed the procedure to request self-exclusion should be refused service and prevented from gambling.

If you think you are spending too much time or money gambling then ask staff for more information about this scheme.

If you are worried about online gambling then you can download a ‘site blocker’ such as Gamblock or Netnanny, which can block access to on line gambling sites.

What other reasons are there for that line being there-in that particular place under the words "self exclusion"?

Coincidence? You have an alcohol problem? Your nan has recently died? You have piles?


Pretty evident to anyone with half a brain to me.

In case you missed what tirilej said......go back a few posts and have a look.

Some players ask for self exclusion for reasons other than gambling problems, which is why it is important to state clearly that you have a problem with gambling. You will also notice the text you quoted says USUALLY between 6 months and 5 years.....it doesn't state that 6 months is definitely a minimum.

If both of the ops issues had occured within the same group, then I agree that his $5000 should be refunded, as they had voided his bets in the first case.....HOWEVER the first casino got it wrong (they should not have refunded as bets were accepted....the full win should have been paid), and the second casino got it right in validating the bets.

The bottom line is that the player placed those bets expecting to be paid in full if they won....hence they must expect to take the losses. It is unreasonable to force the second casino to refund losses just because the first casino made a poor decision.

I also don't think those who see things differently from you should be described as having less than half a brain.
 

PNEFOREVER2

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Location
Preston,lancs
You will also notice the text you quoted says USUALLY between 6 months and 5 years.....it doesn't state that 6 months is definitely a minimum.

However lesser organisations like the ones I stated do,like the Health Lottery and the Gambling Association.

If these state more than the Gamblers Aware-the one which most websites state on their website,then what is the point in stating it at all?

Would you not expect Gamblers Aware to be at least be six months?

Tell you what,lets invite some top,accredited casinos here to say what they appear to be "self exclusion" in terms of minimum months/years.

PS the op NEVER asked for a reason for the self exclusion nor did tirilej know if he/she did-even tirilej said he/she closed his/her account-which he/she didn't at all in any such words,he permanently excluded himself,which upon actual research of the words,as you will know is completely different,so if you're savvy enough to run a casino you should be savvy enough to know when there's an issue if someone asks for a self exclusion without a reason.

I never missed tirilej's point at all-there was a reason for the reply.

On the flip side,for the sake of logic,I will agree that however hard it is for us to prove the last casino did or didn't know of his exclusion from winners casino,its equally as hard to prove he didn't look for a casino associated with winners to try his luck as an excluded player-obviously it would be a win-win situation.

Lose-he shouts "I'm excluded",he wins-he has a chance of being paid.

I'm not so naive to not think of this,I'm just stating what could most likely have played out from the players side-as you Nifty do tend to take the casinos side-no offence meant.

But then again as stated before what is the issue with Winners Casino informing their whole family of his exclusion? Wouldn't it be saving us this discussion?

A circ of IP addy,bank details,address etc.Communication within a family of casinos-thats all it takes.

Chat with 32Red

Me: If I were to request a self exclusion how long is the minimum term for this?

xxxxx: The minimum self exclusion term is 6 months, however if you are just looking to take a few weeks out we do offer a take a break facility to players which means you can close our account from between 1 week and 6 months

Me: Is this due to Gamble Awares guidelines?

xxxxx: we are in partnership with Gamcare and take responsible gaming very seriously so we offer these facilities on order to ensure we do our utmost to have our players gambling responsibly

Admittedly not GA but the standard term seems to be 6 months,"permanent self exclusion" (note the bolded) does not mean a break facility nor 2 months-nevermind 6.

This Winner casino operator must moonlight as an Old Bailey judge.Life sentence-6 months!


The bottom line is that the player placed those bets expecting to be paid in full if they won....hence they must expect to take the losses. It is unreasonable to force the second casino to refund losses just because the first casino made a poor decision.

The first part of this is a given,anyone with an addiction expects-ie a heroin addict with a needle in his arm expects to get high.Give a gambling addict a debit card what do you expect?

In my eyes Winners casino forced the second into a harsh position via non-communication,he should never have been there in the first place via the self-exclusion he had placed himself!

OP: "Give me permanent exclusion"

Operator: Ok see you in 8 weeks.

Makes sense.
 
Last edited:

nepatsfan01

Dormant Account
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Location
USA
The reason im struggling to come to terms with their decision is they told me my deposits would have been voided if i told winner casino i had a gambling problem rather that just asking them to self exclude me. Self exclusion to my understanding is for problem gamblers.

I'm a skeptic and honestly, it sounds to me like you were kind of banking being able to get your deposits back... kind of like "if I win, I get to withdraw but if I lose then I'll just have my deposits voided." It just doesn't work like that - you made the deposits, just because you realize after you lose 5,000 you have a gambling problem doesn't make those deposits void.... you played and now you have to pay. Yes, people lose their self control and yes, this can be a problem, but that doesn't make it someone else's responsibility to clean up the mess you made.

Sorry to sounds so harsh, but c'mon, it drives me nuts - take ownership of the money you spent and get help.
 

PNEFOREVER2

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Location
Preston,lancs
I'm a skeptic and honestly, it sounds to me like you were kind of banking being able to get your deposits back... kind of like "if I win, I get to withdraw but if I lose then I'll just have my deposits voided." It just doesn't work like that - you made the deposits, just because you realize after you lose 5,000 you have a gambling problem doesn't make those deposits void.... you played and now you have to pay. Yes, people lose their self control and yes, this can be a problem, but that doesn't make it someone else's responsibility to clean up the mess you made.

Sorry to sounds so harsh, but c'mon, it drives me nuts - take ownership of the money you spent and get help.

To a point I agree-already stated this could well be the case,admittedly I like to take the players side-maybe my fault.

Nifty playing devils advocate usually the casinos side,if it transpired that I was in the wrong I would hold my hands up,I just don't see it.

Could I be wrong,yep,who couldn't on a 50/50?

Problem is stating what came first,him looking what site winners were in conjunction with,or the site he played not knowing he was excluded from winners.

Sh*t state of affairs when you cannot trust or take people for their word but even I in my short time here have been taken for a fool so even I won't say for certain-personally I think we'll never know.

If it adds to the discussion then I'm all for it.
 

chayton

aka LooHoo
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Location
Edmonton Canada
Unfortunately the self-exclusion thing COULD be used as a way for problem gamblers to be able to play risk free. If you're self excluded and somehow are able to open an account and deposit and win, there's a slight chance that you can cash out. And if you get busted, you get your deposits back anyhow. And if you lose, you can say, "But I was self excluded and I shouldn't have been allowed to play..." and perhaps get your deposits back then too.

I'm not saying that's the case with the OP, I'm just saying that I'm sure it's a loophole that's been used to advantage by some players.
 

P.V.

Dormant Account
webmeister
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Location
Turn around...
Self exclusion means I need to quit, I have a gambling problem. The other is take a break, which clearly means I need to take a break from your casino for a short period of time. As someone posted 32 Red seems to understand the difference between self exclusion and take a break.

The reason many casinos have a self exclusion option as low as six months is to help the problem gambler to at least stop for six months because many problem gamblers think a year or a permanent ban is too much and they can't handle the thought of doing that so they just continue to gamble. Gambling self exclusion doesn't mean I need to save for Christmas or an upcoming vacation.

I can't comment about the OP's reasoning but I can say IMO the self exclusion system is flawed as the OP has pointed out. Problem gambling is a serious issue and as long as operators are all doing their own thing and not getting connected to a centralized shared system a problem gambler can just wait a day or two for a new casino to launch and start gambling again.

I've studied this area in detail and a problem gambler needs to have one point of contact to self exclude from online gambling sites and when doing so it's total self exclusion from online gambling. it's an addiction and I can pretty much guarantee six months won't fix the problem.

If you're an alcoholic would six months cure you and then be fine to have a few drinks after the six months? I don't think so.

In my discussions within this area, some unethical operators have been known to pray on self excluded players after short exclusions, therefore more the need for total self exclusion.

There are many good help lines for gambling addiction, I don't support the stop gambling software as it's too easy to get online elsewhere to gamble avoiding the software.

OP here's another recent thread with your type complaint here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/edw123-vs-casino-rewards.53315/
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
Thanks PV!
I thought self excluding was just closing ones account, and then it was different reasons for doing it. The English language again.
I better stop doing that or I might find myself locked out from everywhere;)
 
Top