Self Exclusion - CM Accredited Casino

[funex]

Ok, what did I miss here?
Why am I being an oportunist?
So, its all on me then ?

 

[funex]

This has really pissed me off. There were some of you being harsh on Nifty for his last post, which I also thought harsh. Turns out he was right. I have spent time on several posts helping support this OP and gently encourage a positive outcome, when CM then tells us he has done this before. The bloke may have a problem, but is also an OPPORTUNIST and clearly (based on VPL's correct and fair treatment before) tries to exploit the ignorance of CS after SE and when he does so bets big amounts, knowing that they could win him big amounts or if not he can come here and play the rule book for sympathy and a refund.
Those of you who often comment on my, and especially Nifty's cynicism, would do well to refer back to this thread. OP, you have taken advantage of people's sympathy here. Not cool.
And I thank CM for stopping myself and others from further making fools of ourselves on this thread.
Over and out.

This had been mentioned in the beginning of the thread, I wasn't hiding anything from anyone.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/60013/

Both situations are distinct from each other, yet similar, please read carefully the first occurrence and compare them.
Just because they're quite similar and it had happened before, does not means that It makes it right now.

Seriously, you guys are judging me as a scamer, and that is not what happened.
I'm not trying to get any sympathy from anyone, and if I got some, I really appreciate it.

EDIT:
sorry, reading the whole thread once again, I see that chayton was refering to another occurrence which had nothing to do with this.

2nd EDIT: just one last note

dunover,

Don't take this as a final effort to win u over or something like that, I just want to clarify that I never had the intention to take advantage of anyone.

I'm familiar with forums and I know that everyone's activity is quite public for everyone to see, I wasn't hiding anything.

The previous case was slightly different from this one and in both cases, just because they have happened twice to me, doesn't means that I'm the one to blame entirely.

Like I said, it was mine and the casino's blame, that.. no one can't tell me otherwise.

Anyway, thank you and everyone else for taking part on this discussion, whatever the outcome was.

I just want to move on with a clear conscience.

 

[skiny]

Personally, I don't think the OP should be refunded. It's important for people with addictions not to lose sight of the consequences for their actions. My guess would be that people who fall off the wagon without repercussions are probably more likely to do so again in the future. Most addictions aren't even addressed until a great deal of hardship is experienced as a result of them. When a recovering addict falls back, it's the losses that reinforce the negative consequences for their actions.

On the other hand if the OP had a self exclusion agreement with a casino, the casino has agreed not to accept the OP's wagers. It's just as important for a reputable casino not to profit from an admitted gambling addict. If the casino keeps the OP's deposits, there is obviously a profit being made.

So now you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Neither the casino nor the OP should really have any right to this money. I suggest someone finds a more appropriate place for the money than in the pockets of the casino or the OP. Apparently there's a webpage with a whole list of charities around here somewhere. Maybe that's a good place to start.

 

[Andy Walker]

This had been mentioned in the beginning of the thread, I wasn't hiding anything from anyone.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/60013/

Both situations are distinct from each other, yet similar, please read carefully the first occurrence and compare them.
Just because they're quite similar and it had happened before, does not means that It makes it right now.

Seriously, you guys are judging me as a scamer, and that is not what happened.
I'm not trying to get any sympathy from anyone, and if I got some, I really appreciate it.

EDIT:
sorry, reading the whole thread once again, I see that chayton was refering to another occurrence which had nothing to do with this.

2nd EDIT: just one last note

dunover,

Don't take this as a final effort to win u over or something like that, I just want to clarify that I never had the intention to take advantage of anyone.

I'm familiar with forums and I know that everyone's activity is quite public for everyone to see, I wasn't hiding anything.

The previous case was slightly different from this one and in both cases, just because they have happened twice to me, doesn't means that I'm the one to blame entirely.

Like I said, it was mine and the casino's blame, that.. no one can't tell me otherwise.

Anyway, thank you and everyone else for taking part on this discussion, whatever the outcome was.

I just want to move on with a clear conscience.

It can be easy to use fanciful thoughts and imagination to justify all the wrongs and rights of any systems that may or may not allow people to play when they have short or long time problems when gambling.

The long and short of it is to not go online and work or test any system for holes, workarounds and advantage where the ending result is being banned, losing your deposit and being thoroughly disappointed.

Just my thoughts…

 

[chuchu59]

Hi everyone,
Last year I decided to have a break from gambling as I felt that it was getting out of control.
I had an account with almost every Casinomeister accredited casino, so I started following the list and asking for a self exclusion period from 2 to 5 years, all of them complied without any major complications.

This afternoon, I lost the battle to the gambling "illness" and decided to play again.

I contacted several casinos asking if my self exclusion period was due, and if they could re-open the account.

32Red, bet10, luckynugget, crazyvegas were quite professional and strict, they informed me that I would only be allowed play once the self exclusion period was due.
However, there was one casino that I won't say the name for now, which reopened my account within a blink of an eye, although I had requested in 2012 for a 5 year self exclusion period. (once I started the chat, in 2 mns I was playing again)

So it happens that I had one of my worst sessions ever and lost a few K's. I feel like punching someone in the throat, mainly myself.

The reason why I'm posting this is to ask you if it is from common knowledge, for a Casinomeister accredited casino to be so careless and not follow strict procedures regarding responsible gaming towards their players?
Should I have been allowed to reopen my account, whilst it was obvious to the agent that I have had gambling issues?

I only have to blame myself, but I feel that the casino should also be held responsible.

Any opinions about this type of issue, has it been widely discussed before?

Cheers,
(Sorry for my English)

I loathe to go through the whole thread seeing its already 6 pages.

As long as you don't make a claim to recover what you lost(you mentioned several k's, I believe you should name and shame the casino.

 

[albrco123]

JMHO but Skiny is absolutely correct, neither the OP nor the Casino should benefit from this, a fair resolution would be for the Casino to donate an amount equivalent to the OP's deposit to a CM Charity.

Al

 

[skiny]

JMHO but Skiny is absolutely correct, neither the OP nor the Casino should benefit from this, a fair resolution would be for the Casino to donate an amount equivalent to the OP's deposit to a CM Charity.

Al

Both parties are in the wrong. Why should only one take a loss?

Match it and donate the sum.

Lessons aren't learned without consequences.

 

[sigothx1]

Ive read the whole thread, and i find myself at the end thinking what i did at the start, The player should not be refunded and ill give my reasons, firstly, The player made a conscious choice to go to MULTIPLE sites to try and get un-self excluded, this already shows me that the player was not somehow lured by an email from a casino he was self excluded from, he made the decision he wanted to gamble, Whether or not he requested a self exclusion in the past is absolutely irrelevant, i im almost certain, had this site not allowed him to play, he would have found another accredited or not casino to play at.

Secondly, if the player had won, he would have remained silent, There wouldn't be any issue at all with him getting unbanned and playing then, and if the player doesn't admit this to himself, he needs to wake up.

thirdly, As mentioned, self exclusion is a privilege, not a right, Some sites are more strict with there rules, but the fact remains, nowhere is it written on this site that a self excluded player CANNOT play for the duration, assuming it is lifted by the player, which it was. The casino has done nothing wrong.

And lastly, this person is a grown man or woman, if they have a genuine problem, i sincerely hope they dont get one penny back, because this might finally be a wake up call to get some professional help, Refunding deposits to a problem gambler is like giving an ex junkie a months supply of heroin and expecting them not to use it, No promise this player can make can be believed, they have already broken there own vow by un-self excluding.

oh and another minor note, if this site does indeed refund it, whats to stop me, or any of you guys self excluding from X site for 6 months while playing as normal on our usual haunts, then using the same "method" as this poster and basically playing 1000's for free, aslong as you can get some sympathy with a story.

im sorry, i really am, if this comes across badly, but i think tough love is the only medicane for people with addictions, society treats these people with sympathy all to much that it does not help.

i complete defend and agree with nifty here.

 

[KasinoKing]

I loathe to go through the whole thread seeing its already 6 pages.

As long as you don't make a claim to recover what you lost(you mentioned several k's, I believe you should name and shame the casino.

The casino has already been named. It was Butlers Bingo's casino.

KK

 

[albrco123]

Both parties are in the wrong. Why should only one take a loss?

Match it and donate the sum.

Lessons aren't learned without consequences.

Sounds fair to me!

 

[Balthazar]

Let me rephrase that:

If a bungee jumping company gets a client that wants to jump from a bridge 200 meter high with a rope tied to his foot, and both knowingly of the dangerous situation, allow this to happen, then yes.. both are responsible.

How so? If you jump while being fully aware of the risks it's your decision. Why are people always trying to blame others for their own actions?

 

[Balthazar]

Actually, yes in this country the Ambulance service would be partly guilty.

But then again, it's the UK.

 

[bsilva028]

IMHO, both are responsable, so both should loose part.

OP is responsable because was his choice to deposit again
Casino is responsable because accepted the unlock of the account before the self-exclusion period over.

i think that player should be refunded in a part of the deposites, but not the 100%.
ex: casino refunds 20 or 30% of the deposites, its a good decision IMO

casino looses a bit? yes, but casino was wrong in accept the player back before the 5 years.
player looses? yes, its an adult, so it is also responsable by his own acts.

 

[Richas]

The difference between land-based casinos and bookies SE and online SE is that it's hard to administer land based SE where the operator has hundreds of premises. They would literally have to ask ID from every person coming through the door, and compare it against a SE'd database, Unworkable. In the online area though, this is EXACTLY what they can do and actually do. This is why I think to a certain extent the site you played breached their responsibilities to their LGA by letting you play again, just as you breached your responsibility to yourself by attempting to play again. The thing is, you played to win, and would therefore expect the winnings had you won. Nevertheless, the CS agent who allowed you to play needs a boot up their backside.

The non-remote sector can do a lot better. To start with the use of debit cards could have the same check as those used online. Machine gambling could easily be made to be loyalty card based only effectively making them account based betting the same as online.

Casinos did ID every person going in to them, they used to be members only. Now we have many that are walk in. Casinos could easily return to ID check on entry.

 

[maphesto]

Both parties are in the wrong. Why should only one take a loss?

Match it and donate the sum.

Lessons aren't learned without consequences.

This is definately the best solution! OP, which clearly is ill, should not receive a penny back. He needs to learn his lesson!

The casino should not have opened that account! Not before those years have passed.

Some posters seem to be mad at OP, remember, this is an illness. Alcoholics can use every little tool they can find to get what they, for the moment, want.

This shows that OP in July 2012 knew that his money never could accumulate any win then:

Simple as that, I'm out, 400 euros lost that would never have a chance of cashing out as I was still on selfexclusion, final decision.

The urge now was to big. The need to gamble was to big. He could never cash any money out this time either.

He probably felt he hit jackpot at the same moment when he finally managed to sneak in.

 

[wigan rl]

The casino was at fault here there is no arguing about that they messed up

Addiction is a strong thing it's very hard to over come not just gambling anything and this is the reason not just casinos but any gambling site have these things in place it's not a overnight thing people have to deal with it the rest of their life's and a very high % fall off the wagon

My personal feelings are the op got an urge and went daft but the main thing to me which doesn't add up is why go trying to reopend accounts when you have got one with an accredited casino? (is it redbet or 32 red)

Do i think the op should get a refund? Yes i do but i don't think it's right morally

 

[funex]

The final decision was reported to me just now:

We have completed our investigation in to your case and consulted with the LGA with whom we hold our licence.

At no point during your correspondence with us did you refer to any form of gambling problem, and regulations laid down by the LGA allow operators to re-open self-excluded accounts after a full year has passed from the date of exclusion.

The decision has now been taken by management to keep your account permanently closed and the deposits made will not be refunded.

Regards,

Ian

Cannot say I'm happy about it..

I'm not completely aware of ecogra regulations and how they're applied on their operators,
should these practices be applied at every certified casino?

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

EDIT:

LGA terms about responsible gaming
Outdated URL (Invalid)

So, remember folks, no point on asking self exclusion periods over 1 year at Malta regulated casinos

 

[skiny]

We have completed our investigation in to your case and consulted with the LGA with whom we hold our licence.

At no point during your correspondence with us did you refer to any form of gambling problem, and regulations laid down by the LGA allow operators to re-open self-excluded accounts after a full year has passed from the date of exclusion.

The decision has now been taken by management to keep your account permanently closed and the deposits made will not be refunded.

Regards,

Ian

So addicts are cured after a year. That's a relief.

Which correspondence are they talking about? The one where you originally self excluded or the one where you asked to reopen your account?

Did they really agree to a 5 year self exclusion?

 

[Mousey]

The final decision was reported to me just now:



Cannot say I'm happy about it..

I'm not completely aware of ecogra regulations and how they're applied on their operators,
should these practices be applied at every certified casino?

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

If you did not tell them you wanted the exclusion due to a gambling problem, then ... what?... they were supposed to read your mind??

You didn't tell them because , perhaps in the back of your mind, you wanted to leave yourself leeway to start gambling again. I don't mean to come off as harsh, but you must tell the casinos you are excluding due to gambling problem/addiction. Uninstall all casinos, block all casino emails, install Gamblock, and move on.

I sincerely hope you get this monster under control.

 

[Nifty29]

The final decision was reported to me just now:



Cannot say I'm happy about it..

I'm not completely aware of ecogra regulations and how they're applied on their operators,
should these practices be applied at every certified casino?

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

Good decision.

You were exposed.

The first time you had the benefit of the doubt.....the second time it's obvious you knew exactly what you were doing i.e. freerolling.

IMO any credibility you might have had has disappeared after the previous case was uncovered by CM himself. You pissed quite a few people off who fought for your corner believing you were "innocent" in re-opening your account "in a moment of weakness". Well, if it WAS one moment of weakness then maybe, but you had several "moments" when you contacted a host of other accredited casinos. In other words, it was NOT an impulsive action at all. It had to be pre-planned and thought out, otherwise you would have realised your "error" after being knocked back by the other operators and stopped trying.

Nope. It's pretty clear you chose previously SE accredited casinos in particular, as you knew whether you won or lost, you could come to the forum singing the "We should expect better from accredited casinos blah blah" tune and requesting either your winnings or deposits paid. You knew that doing so would bring some members on side and make whichever operator it was look like the bad guys, and that they might be forced to pay you to protect their "reputation" (as you so interestingly put it yourself).

People think I'm harsh. When it comes to stuff like this, yes I am. It's not a personal judgement. It's your actions I think are disgraceful, not the least of which is abusing the sympathy of genuine well-meaning members.

All I can say is....nice try.

 

[funex]

All I can say is that you're wrong.
But everyone is entitled to have their opinion and I respect yours.

 

[sigothx1]

The final decision was reported to me just now:



Cannot say I'm happy about it..

I'm not completely aware of ecogra regulations and how they're applied on their operators,
should these practices be applied at every certified casino?

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

EDIT:

LGA terms about responsible gaming
Outdated URL (Invalid)

So, remember folks, no point on asking self exclusion periods over 1 year at Malta regulated casinos

i think the casino did MORE than enough by investigating this in the first place, You played and you lost, And you have noone else but yourself to blame, Take this as a wake up call to get yourself to a GA meeting or phone the helpline, if your story is true, and i admittedly doubt it, You have my pity, not sympathy, Gambling is meant to be fun, if you cannot do it recreation-ally you should not do it at all.

 

[maphesto]

@Ian:

Do you have any plans for the money involved? I know I would think of it as dirty money until it's given away to better places.

 

[Nifty29]

<quote>We have completed our investigation in to your case and consulted with the LGA with whom we hold our licence.

At no point during your correspondence with us did you refer to any form of gambling problem, and regulations laid down by the LGA allow operators to re-open self-excluded accounts after a full year has passed from the date of exclusion.

The decision has now been taken by management to keep your account permanently closed and the deposits made will not be refunded.

Regards,

Ian </quote>

So addicts are cured after a year. That's a relief.

Which correspondence are they talking about? The one where you originally self excluded or the one where you asked to reopen your account?

Did they really agree to a 5 year self exclusion?

Players can have all sorts of reasons for SE.

It might be saving for a house, or being concerned about their kids seeing them play, or just wanting to take a break.

You're assuming that every player that SE is a compulsive gambler, which I very much doubt is the case.

As for the 5 year request...maybe Ian can shed some light on that?

Bottom line is the OP has a history of deliberately trying (successfully) to circumvent SE processes in order to freeroll operators. Fool me once, and all that. Should the process be improved at some places? Perhaps, but at the end of the day it is a service and not a concrete infallible self-control device that should be used as a replacement for personal responsibility.

In this case, the OP did not say they had a gambling problem. I don't see how BB has the right to assume that they do....some might find that rather insulting. I would.

@Maphesto

I don't see how it is "dirty money".

The player deposited in good faith, expecting to be paid if they won. Why else would anyone deposit? Hence, the deposits were valid and the casino has the right to keep them in that same good faith.

I have no doubt, knowing Ian and BB, that they WOULD have paid any winnings if they occurred, and then closed the account permanently...to suggest otherwise is to insult Ian and his ethics.

 

[maphesto]

@Maphesto

I don't see how it is "dirty money".

The player deposited in good faith, expecting to be paid if they won. Why else would anyone deposit? Hence, the deposits were valid and the casino has the right to keep them in that same good faith.

I have no doubt, knowing Ian and BB, that they WOULD have paid any winnings if they occurred, and then closed the account permanently...to suggest otherwise is to insult Ian and his ethics.

You might be right, this quote from yours is interesting:

As for the 5 year request...maybe Ian can shed some light on that?

If the casino have replied to OP that they only use one year long SE, or similar, then it's a different story.