Self Exclusion breaches - UK

[colinsunderland]

Possibly - but I believe the algorithms and data the big casinos use may be out of the reach of smaller ones. Yes, as Colin said postcodes aren't expensive to check, but in themselves aren't foolproof either. The permutations of a letter missed in a postcode, surname, DOB etc. I reckon would need something quite complex, akin to those systems some use to spot collusion and bonus abuse.

But thats the thing, you can't miss a letter out of a postcode if you have to type it in and select your address from a drop down box. Then just have the system check the db for any self exclusions in the postcode and if there's a match, then manually check it. It wouldn't completely stop duplicate registrations, but would stop a high percentage.

 

[coolrunnings19]

Possibly - but I believe the algorithms and data the big casinos use may be out of the reach of smaller ones. Yes, as Colin said postcodes aren't expensive to check, but in themselves aren't foolproof either. The permutations of a letter missed in a postcode, surname, DOB etc. I reckon would need something quite complex, akin to those systems some use to spot collusion and bonus abuse.

That is quite possibly why many casinos are ceasing trading, the smaller ones especially cannot cope with the rising taxes and increased costs. The shops will be hit big time in April this year when the max stake comes in (on machines)

 

[dunover]

But thats the thing, you can't miss a letter out of a postcode if you have to type it in and select your address from a drop down box. Then just have the system check the db for any self exclusions in the postcode and if there's a match, then manually check it. It wouldn't completely stop duplicate registrations, but would stop a high percentage.

Agreed, but remember many of these smaller casinos are foreign-owned and may not be aware of this, or the cost could be excessive as it's a paid service. In the same way it's really only UK/Eire big bookies that use CRA's for high-standard verification.

Really, to get this debate any further forward we would need one of these smaller non-UK casinos to inform of what options they have available and their opinions on the viability of them. We can type away here with our suggestions and theories, but we are missing the practicalities from those in the know.

 

[maxd]

Still a lady? Typical lady...wrong facts. Why don't you try reading? Oh sorry I forgot you are still a lady!

I've sent you a Warning explaining what is wrong with this post. I'm also giving you a wee's "vacation" to think it over. The bottom line is you need to learn respect for _all_ our forum members: dissing the women because they are women is going to get you kicked to the curb.

 

[colinsunderland]

Agreed, but remember many of these smaller casinos are foreign-owned and may not be aware of this, or the cost could be excessive as it's a paid service. In the same way it's really only UK/Eire big bookies that use CRA's for high-standard verification.

Really, to get this debate any further forward we would need one of these smaller non-UK casinos to inform of what options they have available and their opinions on the viability of them. We can type away here with our suggestions and theories, but we are missing the practicalities from those in the know.

Its under a penny a lookup if you buy a lot, even if not, its under £100 for 2500 checks (2.7p + VAT each), any casino who can't afford that shouldn't be in business .

Problem is, as much as some people seem to think its a no lose situation for the customer, it isn't. I would bet for every 1 person that actually gets deposits refunded, theres 100 that don't. You don't have to be great at maths to see why casinos aren't doing more SE checks at sign up.

I would bet anything that if the UKGC put into all licenses from tomorrow that they had to refund all deposits of anyone found to be SE'd, and pay the same amount again to charity (therefore being in a lose lose situation themselves), by the end of the week most casinos would find a way round the problem they seem incapable of getting round at the moment.

 

[EkJR]

Its under a penny a lookup if you buy a lot, even if not, its under £100 for 2500 checks (2.7p + VAT each), any casino who can't afford that shouldn't be in business .

Problem is, as much as some people seem to think its a no lose situation for the customer, it isn't. I would bet for every 1 person that actually gets deposits refunded, theres 100 that don't. You don't have to be great at maths to see why casinos aren't doing more SE checks at sign up.

I would bet anything that if the UKGC put into all licenses from tomorrow that they had to refund all deposits of anyone found to be SE'd, and pay the same amount again to charity (therefore being in a lose lose situation themselves), by the end of the week most casinos would find a way round the problem they seem incapable of getting round at the moment.

Have to agree here. There is no incentive or indeed stated threat of loss of licence for the casinos to eradicate the problem all together. As you say, the UKGC put the rule in and it's wiped out pronto.

We talk about smaller casinos but some of the biggest ones are the main culprits. The amount of exclusion issues with William Hill for example is absolutely mental online.