Self Exclusion - CM Accredited Casino

[dunover]

Gambling only becomes 'problem gambling' when people lose. It's really that simple. People SE then recover their finances, get the urge again and realize they can't play at their favourite site(s). This OP did exactly that, then is full of gambler's remorse. If he got the cash back, he would be on a 'high' all full of optimism then spunk it again. Then we'd no doubt have another drawn-out thread when the remorse hits a second time.
Break the chain and quit.

 

[funex]

Nifty29,

I'm beyond from thinking that I'll get my deposits refunded, so should you from accusing me of trying to take advantage of everyone else here.
If that was the case I would be far away from this forum as a "Quit Gambling" user and from defending myself.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you're getting so excited behind the computer, almost to the point of jerking off thinking that you found a fox in a flock and everyone giving you credit for it.
I can ensure you that was not the case.

At this point I would just be satisfied for the Butlerbingo recognize the fact that I'm not the only one to blaim here, they had a part in it too.

As for my addiction, I'll just keep struggling and hoping that I won't fall into the online gambling trap again.
Next step is to acquire Gamblock.

Thank you all, may this be a lesson for other addicts as myself.

 

[funex]

Gambling only becomes 'problem gambling' when people lose. It's really that simple. People SE then recover their finances, get the urge again and realize they can't play at their favourite site(s). This OP did exactly that, then is full of gambler's remorse. If he got the cash back, he would be on a 'high' all full of optimism then spunk it again. Then we'd no doubt have another drawn-out thread when the remorse hits a second time.
Break the chain and quit.

You're probably right.

 

[sigothx1]

Nifty29,

I'm beyond from thinking that I'll get my deposits refunded, so should you from accusing me of trying to take advantage of everyone else here.
If that was the case I would be far away from this forum as a "Quit Gambling" user and from defending myself.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you're getting so excited behind the computer, almost to the point of jerking off thinking that you found a fox in a flock and everyone giving you credit for it.
I can ensure you that was not the case.

At this point I would just be satisfied for the Butlerbingo recognize the fact that I'm not the only one to blaim here, they had a part in it too.

As for my addiction, I'll just keep struggling and hoping that I won't fall into the online gambling trap again.
Next step is to acquire Gamblock.

Thank you all, may this be a lesson for other addicts as myself.

Dont see why you have to be insulting, he wasnt to you at all as much as you think he was. Here is your problem.

"At this point I would just be satisfied for the Butlerbingo recognize the fact that I'm not the only one to blaim here"

Nope, there not to blame at all, your to blame, take responsibility for your actions, your over 18 meaning you an adult, Stop blaming others.

"As for my addiction, I'll just keep struggling and hoping"

ye, becuase this has worked for you in the past right? See a medical professional or go to a meeting do SOMTHING other than "hoping"

 

[dunover]

Nifty29,

I'm beyond from thinking that I'll get my deposits refunded, so should you from accusing me of trying to take advantage of everyone else here.
If that was the case I would be far away from this forum as a "Quit Gambling" user and from defending myself.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you're getting so excited behind the computer, almost to the point of jerking off thinking that you found a fox in a flock and everyone giving you credit for it.
I can ensure you that was not the case.

At this point I would just be satisfied for the Butlerbingo recognize the fact that I'm not the only one to blaim here, they had a part in it too.

As for my addiction, I'll just keep struggling and hoping that I won't fall into the online gambling trap again.
Next step is to acquire Gamblock.

Thank you all, may this be a lesson for other addicts as myself.

Unbelievable. Well, with over 7000 thank-yous he must be getting through a hell of a lot of tissues. Come on Funex, you got exposed and no need to be like that! Only YOU can sort your issues out, this has become clear. Good luck.

 

[funex]

ok, I was a bit of an asshole.
Sorry for the offense nifty.

 

[Richas]

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.

This is over harsh.

Self Exclusion should work, if you close for a time it should be closed for a time. Now I do not believe that problem gamblers that work around that protection should get a freeroll but there is something wrong when self exclusion fails. How hard is it to close for the time chosen?

Casinos in the UK have shifted from checking ID on entry to walk in. Now they have signs up denying liability if a self excluder walks in......well maybe fair enough but proper self exclusion means checking ID on the door. Don't pretend you offer it when you clearly do not.

If you close for 5 years, that's it. You do not need a magic word in the chat, there is no shibboleth test for this. If you close for 5 years - That's it. I don't care if it was in a sulk, in fact it is 100% because of a problem. The words said do not matter.

You do not need to say "My name is Richas and I am a problem gambler"....you need to say "my name is Richas I want this account closed for X years (or permanently)" and that should be binding on them.

 

[Nifty29]

This is over harsh.

Self Exclusion should work, if you close for a time it should be closed for a time. Now I do not believe that problem gamblers that work around that protection should get a freeroll but there is something wrong when self exclusion fails. How hard is it to close for the time chosen?

Casinos in the UK have shifted from checking ID on entry to walk in. Now they have signs up denying liability if a self excluder walks in......well maybe fair enough but proper self exclusion means checking ID on the door. Don't pretend you offer it when you clearly do not.

If you close for 5 years, that's it. You do not need a magic word in the chat, there is no shibboleth test for this. If you close for 5 years - That's it. I don't care if it was in a sulk, in fact it is 100% because of a problem. The words said do not matter.

You do not need to say "My name is Richas and I am a problem gambler"....you need to say "my name is Richas I want this account closed for X years (or permanently)" and that should be binding on them.

The OP said 5 years. A whole lot of other stuff he said was unreliable at best, and Ian did not mention any such request.

So you think that everyone that SEs should be branded a compulsive gambler? I can't see how that's fair. As I said, different people have different reasons.

Unless Ian confirms 5 years was requested AND granted in writing, then it's pointless discussing it really as it's not even close to being a fact.

Nothing changes the fact that the OP deliberately did what they did.

Now, if you'll excuse me I have a meeting with Kleenex to discuss sponsorship.

 

[funex]

Just to clarify the self exclusion request:

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.

Email sent and and answered by support:

Hi ***,

That's no problem and The Butler has taken care of that for you and your account is now closed. Best wishes for the future.

Kind regards,

Astrid x

Web: www.ButlersBingo.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/butlersbingo1
Twitter: @butlersbingo
Google+: gplus.to/ButlersBingo/


On 5 August 2012 18:17, **** wrote:

Hello Astrid,
I would like to be self excluded from this gambling site for 5 years please.
My name is **** and the username is ***

Thank you.

I'm quite sure Ian can confirm this.

 

[Nifty29]

Just to clarify the self exclusion request:



Email sent and and answered by support:



I'm quite sure Ian can confirm this.

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.

In other words, you can exclude for 1 year max....or permanently, I guess. Plus, you did NOT mention that you were a problem gambler (see my earlier post)

It makes no difference to what you did anyway. I might use a lot of disposable handkerchiefs, but I know dodgy behaviour when I see it. You got lucky the first time last year....this time you got sussed. You win some, you lose some.

My advice? Quit while you're ahead. The more you attempt to "clarify" things the more I'm convinced I was right all along.

 

[wigan rl]

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.

In other words, you can exclude for 1 year max....or permanently, I guess. Plus, you did NOT mention that you were a problem gambler (see my earlier post)

It makes no difference to what you did anyway. I might use a lot of disposable handkerchiefs, but I know dodgy behaviour when I see it. You got lucky the first time last year....this time you got sussed. You win some, you lose some.

My advice? Quit while you're ahead. The more you attempt to "clarify" things the more I'm convinced I was right all along.

Nifty i know your pissed at the op and in a way i kind of agree with you in that respect

Take the op out of this and look at this different someone emails in asks for a 5 year exclusion and they re-open the account after a year saying 'you didn't tell us you had a gambling problem' is that ok from a accredited casino?

 

[Richas]

The OP said 5 years. A whole lot of other stuff he said was unreliable at best, and Ian did not mention any such request.

So you think that everyone that SEs should be branded a compulsive gambler? I can't see how that's fair. As I said, different people have different reasons.

Unless Ian confirms 5 years was requested AND granted in writing, then it's pointless discussing it really as it's not even close to being a fact.

Nothing changes the fact that the OP deliberately did what they did.

Now, if you'll excuse me I have a meeting with Kleenex to discuss sponsorship.

I think the absolute opposite. If you self exclude for 5 years that should be it. The individual case matters not a jot, it is the principle. I don't care why someone says 5 years no more - that intent should be honoured.

As an industry fake self exclusion is hugely damaging, as is the kleenex crap. If I say close forever, it should be forever, if I say for 5 years it should be for 5 years. It is not a high hurdle.

Now if somebody tries to game useless sites with useless policies, well clearly they are chancers but the site should stick to it's commitment to exclude, that way they cannot be gamed oh yeah and they can be a responsible site with a right to claim moral legitimacy.

 

[albrco123]

A simple fix to avoid issues like this in the future would be for Casino's to request a reason for SE at the outset and confirm to the player that they are being excluded for xxxx months/years for the reason of xxxxx


Al

 

[Richas]

A simple fix to avoid issues like this in the future would be for Casino's to request a reason for SE at the outset and confirm to the player that they are being excluded for xxxx months/years for the reason of xxxxx


Al

There is no reason to ask why - it matters not a jot. Honour the request don't force them to recite a GA mantra to get protection, especially as that is potentially damaging if made public.

 

[maphesto]

Can Ian confirm that this is the exact conversation?

Hi ***,

That's no problem and The Butler has taken care of that for you and your account is now closed. Best wishes for the future.

Kind regards,

Astrid x

Web: www.ButlersBingo.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/butlersbingo1
Twitter: @butlersbingo
Google+: gplus.to/ButlersBingo/


On 5 August 2012 18:17, **** wrote:

Hello Astrid,
I would like to be self excluded from this gambling site for 5 years please.
My name is **** and the username is ***

Thank you.

The most interesting part is if BB at one point mentioned that SE only applies for one year! If not, I find it very bad for an accredited casino.

 

[Jasminebed]

Gambling only becomes 'problem gambling' when people lose. It's really that simple. People SE then recover their finances, get the urge again and realize they can't play at their favourite site(s). This OP did exactly that, then is full of gambler's remorse. If he got the cash back, he would be on a 'high' all full of optimism then spunk it again. Then we'd no doubt have another drawn-out thread when the remorse hits a second time.
Break the chain and quit.

Dunover, it's naive and over-simplified to think that problem gambling is only a problem because of financial losses. It can steal your time, cause people to ignore other responsibilities, stress family relations, etc. Most of us enjoy our respites from reality relaxing playing some slots, but that desire for relaxation can evolve into a compulsion, just like that of the heroin user or alcoholic that drinks themselves into a stupor.

I think the OP was well aware there was a possibility he would not be paid if he won. That itself was a gamble. The NEED for the risk of ruin can be a big component for some people.

I have a real life friend that recently self-excluded from OLG casinos for a period of five years (their maximum, they don't offer lifetime). But when she self-excluded, she was told she could request in writing that it be lifted after six months. Just to put the LGA's policy in perspective.

Funex, it's a good suggestion to visit your doctor. Some of the same medications used to treat OCD can be a useful tool in battling your illness. I still wish you all the best.

I'd like to suggest that just the way a casino will comp a player after a bad session, that Butler's Bingo make a donation to a gambling treatment program.

I would like to see all accredited casinos require a cooling off period to re-open self-excluded accounts, and that requests need to be reviewed by someone other than front-line CSRs.

 

[funex]

 

[albrco123]

There is no reason to ask why - it matters not a jot. Honour the request don't force them to recite a GA mantra to get protection, especially as that is potentially damaging if made public.

While i do agree it should not matter why a player SE's the reason given by BB in this case for not refunding deposits is that the OP did not mention problem gambing leaving BB a way out, had the Casino been required to request a reason and the OP said "problem gambling" the way i read BB's decision in this Case is that they would have found in the OP's favor? maybe Ian can comment on this?


JMHO

AL

 

[Nifty29]

I think the absolute opposite. If you self exclude for 5 years that should be it. The individual case matters not a jot, it is the principle. I don't care why someone says 5 years no more - that intent should be honoured.

As an industry fake self exclusion is hugely damaging, as is the kleenex crap. If I say close forever, it should be forever, if I say for 5 years it should be for 5 years. It is not a high hurdle.

Now if somebody tries to game useless sites with useless policies, well clearly they are chancers but the site should stick to it's commitment to exclude, that way they cannot be gamed oh yeah and they can be a responsible site with a right to claim moral legitimacy.

What Kleenex crap? How does that damage anyone?

I know you're all about the SE thing with your UKGC submissions etc, but each case should be taken on it's merits. The casino (we think) granted a 5 year exclusion, but IS allowed to reactivate after one year upon request under their licence terms.

As an aside, how many land casinos would give your money BACK if you snuck in after SE? How about none for starters. In fact, a legal precedent was quoted earlier which supports the refusal of operators to refund.

It is totally unrealistic and unreasonable for operators to be totally responsible for the actions of a player, especially one aware enough to go through the process of trying to be readmitted at several other accredited casinos AND trying it on in the past.

 

[cheetahwind]

Actually I know if your caught in most US casinos.

The casino if they catch someone playing in them, they have to give all machine credits, chips, vouchers, and of the sort. To there local gambling treatment program. The casino nor the player would be allowed to keep the money. Then most of the times the patron is charged with trespassing or something along those lines. To try to deter them from gambling in that place again the future.

Then again, it looks like the exclusion wasn't based on a gambling problem. So why should they be told they can't keep the money anyways. According to the e-mail posted they just wanted a break. So I don't see it being an issue of the money isn't anyone's really. The player lost it into the casino fair and square. Whether they had a gambling problem or not.

 

[chuchu59]

Dunover, it's naive and over-simplified to think that problem gambling is only a problem because of financial losses. It can steal your time, cause people to ignore other responsibilities, stress family relations, etc. Most of us enjoy our respites from reality relaxing playing some slots, but that desire for relaxation can evolve into a compulsion, just like that of the heroin user or alcoholic that drinks themselves into a stupor.

I think the OP was well aware there was a possibility he would not be paid if he won. That itself was a gamble. The NEED for the risk of ruin can be a big component for some people.

I have a real life friend that recently self-excluded from OLG casinos for a period of five years (their maximum, they don't offer lifetime). But when she self-excluded, she was told she could request in writing that it be lifted after six months. Just to put the LGA's policy in perspective.

Funex, it's a good suggestion to visit your doctor. Some of the same medications used to treat OCD can be a useful tool in battling your illness. I still wish you all the best.

I'd like to suggest that just the way a casino will comp a player after a bad session, that Butler's Bingo make a donation to a gambling treatment program.

I would like to see all accredited casinos require a cooling off period to re-open self-excluded accounts, and that requests need to be reviewed by someone other than front-line CSRs.

Yep, this could well be a condition for accreditation IMHO.

 

[Richas]

What Kleenex crap? How does that damage anyone?

I know you're all about the SE thing with your UKGC submissions etc, but each case should be taken on it's merits. The casino (we think) granted a 5 year exclusion, but IS allowed to reactivate after one year upon request under their licence terms.

As an aside, how many land casinos would give your money BACK if you snuck in after SE? How about none for starters. In fact, a legal precedent was quoted earlier which supports the refusal of operators to refund.

It is totally unrealistic and unreasonable for operators to be totally responsible for the actions of a player, especially one aware enough to go through the process of trying to be readmitted at several other accredited casinos AND trying it on in the past.

I don't support money back for excluders deceiving to gamble. I support exclusion being what it says on the tin. If you offer 5 years it should be 5 years. The UKGC have a 1 year minimum. I am open to debate on such minimums but if you say 1 day, it should be 1 day, if you say 5 years it should be 5 years.

PG is a devastating illness for some. Fortunately it is a small proportion (but lots of people) but the industry needs to do much more to help, hostility, kleenex comments and a lack of empathy do not help.

This is entirely consistent with not letting people game sites by depositing expecting a refund or sites gaming PG by taking their money but not paying out if they win.

 

[Richas]

[/B]


Yep, this could well be a condition for accreditation IMHO.

FYI cooling off post a self excl period is mandatory under UKGC rules.

 

[IanO]

As expected this has been quite an interesting thread. I thought I'd add a few points of my own to address some of the points raised.

1: The e-mail requesting a 5 year exclusion by the op is accurate, but as per my response to him the LGA allow for players to change their mind and re-open earlier as long as at least one full calendar year has passed.
2: In the case of problem gamblers, we never re-open accounts. The first indication this player had any problem came when this thread was posted. As you can see by the e-mail he submitted to us in 2012, no specific reason was cited. Our current policy is to request a reason for closure or exclusion but I cannot say the exact date this policy was implemented, and it is not a pre-condition to the request going through as some players refuse to provide a reason.
3: Self exclusion DOES NOT EQUAL problem gambler. I have had people request SE as they are returning to college, saving for a wedding/car/house, moving abroad for a year etc etc.

Bottom line, if you feel you have a problem you should be asking for a permanent self exclusion and citing the exact reason. This would leave no doubt with the operator and situations like this could not occur. You most certainly should not return to sites you know you requested exclusion from in an attempt to have an account re-opened, even if playing at such a place before and losing resulted in a full refund. I can understand why some people here feel that the OP's being paid in a previous similar case would have encouraged him to try this now. If that is the case I sincerely hope the outcome here has convinced him to follow the advice given, install Gamblock and do everything in his power to seek assistance in never gambling again.

Ian

 

[funex]

Let's put aside myself from this thread and any attempt for deposit refunds.

So in general, some of you are saying that a self exclusion does not implies that the player as gambling problems ?
Why would someone ask for a self exclusion if not to prevent himself to play as he cannot guarantee that we will do just that?

I feel that some of you are trying to over simplify and de-dramatize the concept of self exclusion.
It's just too convenient for the houses to define it like that.