Casino Complaint responsible gambling self exclusion fail help needed please

[teddybarko]

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]

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

 

[Nifty29]

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.

 

[rainmaker]

.

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

 

[vinylweatherman]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

I need to read more carefully

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
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

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]

I maybe also have to find out if there is any difference between self exclude and just closing an account
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

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]

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

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

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

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.

 

[chuchu59]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[nepatsfan01]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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

 

[Nifty29]

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 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.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are happy to reveal their poor comprehension or attention to detail by making ill-informed remarks like "Nifty always/almost always takes the casinos side" blah blah.

It's so old.

Not only that, it is incorrect.

I take the side of what is logical and reasonable, and have a pretty damn good track record. I do NOT take the casino's side automatically.

Your statement (which you felt the need to make in two seperate posts) is even more ill-considered, given that I said in this case that the CASINO was WRONG by voiding the $2000 win. Did you miss that part?

Fact is, I support the player side more often than you think. It's just that it's easier to make it about me and how I "support the casinos" than it is to come up with a logical and reasonable counter-argument.

No offence.

I also have to ask how you know exactly what the OP said to the casino when they asked for self exclusion? You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't see any chats or emails...?? How do you know they asked for "permanent exclusion"?

In fact, the OP asked "....IF I HAD mentioned I had a gambling problem....".....I.e. they obviously did NOT mention any such thing. How do you know that, if the casino had asked if it was a gambling problem, that the OP would have been forthcoming? Compulsive gamblers don't like to burn bridges, at least not until they hit rock bottom or decide its time to stop, and the fact that he DID go back and play again and again suggests he wasn't serious about stopping.

 

[Tirilej]

Obviously the casinos don't know that self excluding always mean that the gambler has a problem. I have closed almost all of my Rival accounts and I remember now why what you are saying PV can be confusing for others than me. This is how it looks when you want to close your account at a Rival casino, and it's all called Self Exclusion.
If I chose to do it permanently I can open the account again as long as the reason isn't that I have a problem with gambling. If it is that then I don't think you can play at any Rival again ever, but I'm not totally sure of that.

 

[P.V.]

Obviously the casinos don't know that self excluding always mean that the gambler has a problem. I have closed almost all of my Rival accounts and I remember now why what you are saying PV can be confusing for others than me. This is how it looks when you want to close your account at a Rival casino, and it's all called Self Exclusion.
If I chose to do it permanently I can open the account again as long as the reason isn't that I have a problem with gambling. If it is that then I don't think you can play at any Rival again ever, but I'm not totally sure of that.

Sure in the header they should reflect Take A Break & Self Exclusion & Close Account.

Freeze account - Just taking a break.

Self Exclusion - I have a problem.

Close my account - I just don't want to play here anymore.

I see what you mean Tirlej, it's confusing, needs clarification.


Define: self-exclusion

This is a means to help an addict recover from a gaming addiction by not allowing him or her to gamble. With self-exclusion, an addict is provided with a way to quit gambling that does not require self-control.

This usually applies to gambling though can be meant for related areas, such as self-exclusion from internet gaming.

 

[chayton]

When I first started gambling online I was opening accounts with every bloody casino I could find. One day I realized that I had accounts at every single Fortune Lounge casino....they had about 9 of them I think, maybe even more! But I only really played at 3 or 4 of them. Anyhow a couple years ago during one of my mad 'simplification' phases, I decided to close all of them except for Royal Vegas which was the one I played the most. When I got on chat I said "Can you please close them all except that one?" and they asked me why and I said that I didn't have enough money to play them all, I didn't have a big enough hard drive to install them all, I didn't want to keep getting all the email promos from the ones I didn't play etc. They told me that they'd lock the accounts for either 6 months or a year I think it was - my choice which one I wanted...but during that time I would NOT be allowed to reopen any of them.

But I continued to play at Royal Vegas, then a year or a couple years later I did reopen Platinum Play too.

Then after CR ate all those casinos I realized that I had about 15 casinos in that group too, I asked in chat to close all except Villento and they just said sure, they didn't ask me why or tell me that it was for any set amount of time or anything, they just closed them.

So obviously each group does things a little differently as far as closing accounts, but I agree with PV that if a player is self-excluding because of a gambling problem, they should be able to do that across the whole network, not just through the group. If someone excludes themselves from any MG because of a gambling problem they should be excluded from EVERY casino running MG software, IMO. Same with RTG, NetEnt, Rival etc.

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

I also have to ask how you know exactly what the OP said to the casino when they asked for self exclusion? You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't see any chats or emails...?? How do you know they asked for "permanent exclusion"?

By the same token I don't see Winner casino here saying he didn't ask for permanent self exclusion.


And as for the double post...Really?

 

[edw123]

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/

Couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately this is the wrong forum to raise a general query about self exclusion failure as you'll get little sympathy - many members are very opinionated about the subject, and don't acknowledge gambling problems and consider it "not taking responsibility" - this unfortunately is how society deals with problem gambling hence why it is such a ticking time bomb - especially in the UK with the influx of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.

Having had a similar issue myself, my advice is if you have evidence of a self exclusion failure, raise a Pitch a Bitch, and keep it off the forum.

And use Gamcare in the UK - they are excellent, and if you use their forum, you'll get plenty of suppoort. Definitely helped me, and they even have a freephone helpline.

Good luck!

 

[Nifty29]

By the same token I don't see Winner casino here saying he didn't ask for permanent self exclusion.


And as for the double post...Really?

By the same token, I don't see winner casino posting anything about anything. It's ridiculous to say that he must have specifically said something based purely on the fact that the casino didn't post here specifically to refute that specific statement.....especially given they aren't even participating in the thread.

What double post?

I have no problem debating you, but please don't misrepresent your assumptions as facts.

 

[Nifty29]

Couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately this is the wrong forum to raise a general query about self exclusion failure as you'll get little sympathy - many members are very opinionated about the subject, and don't acknowledge gambling problems and consider it "not taking responsibility" - this unfortunately is how society deals with problem gambling hence why it is such a ticking time bomb - especially in the UK with the influx of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.

Having had a similar issue myself, my advice is if you have evidence of a self exclusion failure, raise a Pitch a Bitch, and keep it off the forum.

And use Gamcare in the UK - they are excellent, and if you use their forum, you'll get plenty of suppoort. Definitely helped me, and they even have a freephone helpline.

Good luck!

Actually, recovery from gambling is ALL ABOUT taking personal responsibility. You don't know/accept this, as you are not in recovery, or if you are, you haven't embraced the idea.

As I've said before, and from memory you refused to answer my question, if you made the bet with the expectation of being paid any winnings, and you DID, then claiming you're owed a refund is BOGUS. You lost fair and square.....nobody forced you to gamble. You had enough nouse to download software, open an account, make a deposit, and play.....plenty of chances to stop if you really wanted to.

As long as people like yourself continue to blame everyone else for your flaws, you will never be free of your addiction.

 

[edw123]

Actually, recovery from gambling is ALL ABOUT taking personal responsibility. You don't know/accept this, as you are not in recovery, or if you are, you haven't embraced the idea.

As I've said before, and from memory you refused to answer my question, if you made the bet with the expectation of being paid any winnings, and you DID, then claiming you're owed a refund is BOGUS. You lost fair and square.....nobody forced you to gamble. You had enough nouse to download software, open an account, make a deposit, and play.....plenty of chances to stop if you really wanted to.

As long as people like yourself continue to blame everyone else for your flaws, you will never be free of your addiction.

You are right, recovery from gambling IS about personal responsibility, agreed. But it's about taking the first step. Point is though is that it's about everyone taking responsibility - the gambling establishment as much as the player. Problem gamblers deserve and need support - just like any addiction if individuals are left to their own devices, they'll fail - simple as.

Nobody forces people to gamble, but the addiction is they actually don't have a choice - that's the way it works and that's what an addict is. Often the gamer doesn't WANT to gamble like the alcoholic who dervices no pleasure from a drink but has it anyway.

If an alcoholic wishes to stop, they have to take responsibility and the first step - they go to an AA meeting. After then they need support from friends and family - i.e. don't keep alcohol easy for them to access, don't keep taking them to the pub etc. etc.

Someone self excluding as this guy is IS taking the first step to try and help themselves - what has happened here is the equivalent of taking the first step, only to find the AA meeting is in a pub with a free bar, and they have a drink waiting for you when you go in, then for the next 6 months you are constantly dragged into the pub by everyone you know. You'll fail!

 

[Balthazar]

Obviously the casinos don't know that self excluding always mean that the gambler has a problem. I have closed almost all of my Rival accounts and I remember now why what you are saying PV can be confusing for others than me. This is how it looks when you want to close your account at a Rival casino, and it's all called Self Exclusion.
If I chose to do it permanently I can open the account again as long as the reason isn't that I have a problem with gambling. If it is that then I don't think you can play at any Rival again ever, but I'm not totally sure of that.

I've posted a thread about this before. This feature should be included in every single software.

 

[chuchu59]

Couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately this is the wrong forum to raise a general query about self exclusion failure as you'll get little sympathy - many members are very opinionated about the subject, and don't acknowledge gambling problems and consider it "not taking responsibility" - this unfortunately is how society deals with problem gambling hence why it is such a ticking time bomb - especially in the UK with the influx of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.

Having had a similar issue myself, my advice is if you have evidence of a self exclusion failure, raise a Pitch a Bitch, and keep it off the forum.

And use Gamcare in the UK - they are excellent, and if you use their forum, you'll get plenty of suppoort. Definitely helped me, and they even have a freephone helpline.

Good luck!

Most of the members that participate in this forum care a lot for people with gambling problems but when the main focus is on whether 'winnings' should be honoured after self-exclusion is requested or whether there should be refunds when deposits are lost though the casinos 'knew' about the addiction then its a different ball game. We should sympathise with players with gambling problems but not at the expense of punishing casinos who may or may not be at fault. The opening post looks not to be one to simply garner sympathy but one trying to solicit members' support to either vouch for the casino to refund losses or honour winnings. The OP has acknowledged he/she has a serious gambling problem ie savings, overdraft depleted and I think this should be addressed first. Thinking day and night on whether the casino is in the wrong and trying to extract something back is not going to help him/her in the long run. I am pretty sure a person with genuine gambling problems will receive a sympathetic hearing here but when it simply boils down to 'winnings/refunds' then I am sorry to say many of us are hardened people who wont take the player's side so easily and play the 'self-responsibility' card.

 

[edw123]

Most of the members that participate in this forum care a lot for people with gambling problems but when the main focus is on whether 'winnings' should be honoured after self-exclusion is requested or whether there should be refunds when deposits are lost though the casinos 'knew' about the addiction then its a different ball game. We should sympathise with players with gambling problems but not at the expense of punishing casinos who may or may not be at fault. The opening post looks not to be one to simply garner sympathy but one trying to solicit members' support to either vouch for the casino to refund losses or honour winnings. The OP has acknowledged he/she has a serious gambling problem ie savings, overdraft depleted and I think this should be addressed first. Thinking day and night on whether the casino is in the wrong and trying to extract something back is not going to help him/her in the long run. I am pretty sure a person with genuine gambling problems will receive a sympathetic hearing here but when it simply boils down to 'winnings/refunds' then I am sorry to say many of us are hardened people who wont take the player's side so easily and play the 'self-responsibility' card.

Fair point, well made.

Challenge is I guess is everyone who has serious gambling problems is in recovery, and remains in recovery for ever - as I know - and I guess deserve protection and support from any gaming establishment. This has to form part of any recovery.

 

[Tirilej]

Fair point, well made.

Challenge is I guess is everyone who has serious gambling problems is in recovery, and remains in recovery for ever - as I know - and I guess deserve protection and support from any gaming establishment. This has to form part of any recovery.

The player only needs to stay as far away as possibly from any gambing establishment. They need to protect themself.
Like any other addiction. No one but yourself can make you stop. They can hold the bottle to your mouth, but you have to swallow.
Please stop making yourself a victim. No one but you is responsible for your actions.

 

[dionysus]

As nice as a sympathetic ear may be why even come looking here from other gamblers...isn't that rather like a drunk hanging out with more drinks (no offense, after all i drink lol). My point is...close the forum page, you know, with all these winning screenshots and such, and open, say, a book. Turn the whole damn computer off, unplug it, go for a walk

 

[Rhyzz]

Operators have a responsibility to do everything possible to prevent self excluded players from opening new accounts. Generally this relates to any brand covered by their license. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the player and anything lost prior to the point the account was identified will remain lost.

Sorry OP but I think you need to swallow the losses, realise why you stopped gambling in the first place and try to get back into the good place you were in for the 2 months prior.

I would however make a point of contacting the regulator of the Casino and tell them what has happened, and that you'd like the funds you lost donated to charity. Do not let the operator profit from it!! If it's a reputable jurisdiction then they'll demand the funds be donated to charity.

 

[nisosbar]

I see self-exclusion as kind of like bankruptcy - it's forever, i.e., 7 years. That is, after a period of time (six months, two years, whatever), the self-exclusion should end.

 

[GambleGans]

Most Casinos give a shit about self exclusion.
I have several cases, where I have opened another account after I did self exclude my first one, if you win you just get your deposits back, and if you loose the money is just gone, if things like that dont get detected at registration or deposit you are screwed and its a riskless trade for the casino.

 

[Tirilej]

Most Casinos give a shit about self exclusion.
I have several cases, where I have opened another account after I did self exclude my first one, if you win you just get your deposits back, and if you loose the money is just gone, if things like that dont get detected at registration or deposit you are screwed and its a riskless trade for the casino.

So what do you really want? To be self excluded or not?
You obviously have a problem since you have done it several times. Still you are going back over and over again.
I don't think you can blame any casino for not detecting you immediately. It's your responsibility and noone elses.

If it's a riskless trade for a casino they wouldn't have the option to self exclude in the first place. I see it as if they are taking their responsibility by not letting you win anything.

Next time you decides to quit gambling do it.