Self Exclusion - CM Accredited Casino

[Cleveland]

Did I just become VWM


.....just poking fun at you VWM

 

[Richas]

A casino rep (Ian) pointed out that they get all kinds a reasons, so you saying "a small minority" is a guess, not a fact. Your opinion that someone is lacking in personal will power is of course just that. Me personally though after seeing people deal with addiction day in and day out, I think it takes an enormous amount of will power and self reflection to realize your limit and not go beyond. I wouldn't dismiss one as more important or the other as having a higher will power.



Once again we have a rep that pointed out some of the various reasons people use it. Each of those reasons have a period where things concerning them could quickly change. So where back to you stating what it is for, which leads me to believe you designed it



Wouldn't playing after 5 years still destroy the OP? or at least have the chance to? An alcoholic is always in recovery even if it's been 10 years. They typically won't tell you they are recovered. I say if you have a problem you should SE and advise the casino of such problem. Now the casino can take measure to protect you. You say if you have a problem SE but don't tell the casino the problem. Casino lets you back after your SE period ends, you lose your money, your family, your life.....but hey as long as appearance of ethics / morals was upheld.



Yes, in that we do. I do think the system could be clearer.

I think the reason should be given even it's simply and automated check box response. At least the casino knows and can do their best to help. The period can then be strictly enforced, and then after it's over upon returning the casino can farther decide to set heavy deposit limits on your account or at least monitor it (which can be automated) to see those multiple deposits in one night for large sums, and auto flag them to not go through...Same way a bank will deny transactions as "unusual," when too many occur.

The casino can't fully help you if you hide the problem. SE for 2 years then coming back to play again and possibly losing all does nothing to help the player.

Thanks for this response. My main comment is what people tell the casino as to why they are self excluding may not be 100% accurate. I am sure that the reps account is truthful I just think that the self excluder is more likely to be offering a fake or partial reason rather than the full picture.

I think it is fundamentally wrong to have two sorts of self exclusion - one where the excluder signs up to the GA mantra and a weaker one where they do not. it may be that the one ready to admit publicly the problem is further along than the other.

The timescales available for self exclusion options is a complex area. Should it be a minimum 1 year as the UK says? Is 1, 5 or lifetime right? I don't really know as it can vary by individual...adding options may be more flexible but it is also more complex. I am not sure that there is a definitive right/wrong answer on that.

 

[Cleveland]

Thanks for this response. My main comment is what people tell the casino as to why they are self excluding may not be 100% accurate. I am sure that the reps account is truthful I just think that the self excluder is more likely to be offering a fake or partial reason rather than the full picture.

I think it is fundamentally wrong to have two sorts of self exclusion - one where the excluder signs up to the GA mantra and a weaker one where they do not. it may be that the one ready to admit publicly the problem is further along than the other.

The timescales available for self exclusion options is a complex area. Should it be a minimum 1 year as the UK says? Is 1, 5 or lifetime right? I don't really know as it can vary by individual...adding options may be more flexible but it is also more complex. I am not sure that there is a definitive right/wrong answer on that.

I'm sure you're getting tired of me going back and forth with you ....I'll make this my last response as I agree fully with your last post. Which does lead me to my last point, which is player responsibility. If they choose to lie about their reasoning then it's on them. At a certain point they have to take responsibility for their problem. That' with any addiction. People around them can only do so much.

 

[skiny]

I have so many problems with this situation I don't even know where to start.

Right off the top the OP should have said he had a gambling problem. If you're excluding yourself from gambling because you have a problem - then admit you have a problem. There are no mind readers. (The amazing Kreskin excluded.)

If a player asks for an exclusion with no reason it might be a good idea to ask why. Seems a little odd that someone would ask for an exclusion without and explanation. Maybe it's just me but if I was just pissy because I was losing I would say I want to quit because I can't win. If I was saving up for an iguana I would probably point that out so the casino didn't think there were any hard feelings. Most people don't self exclude for half a decade. If someone asked me for a whopping 5 year exclusion I'd be a little curious at the very least.

There should be a better definition of self exclusion or different categories for different reasons. Self exclusion is pointless if a quick call or pm can override it. "Do you want a self exclusion or an account lock? We can lock the account for an indefinite period of time but you can request that it be unlocked via email. If you self exclude you can't come back for X amount of months or years."

The law is irrelevant. If you agree to five years and then come back and say the law is only one year, it just means you only feel obligated to abide by the part of your agreement that you're forced to by law. This has nothing to do with whether or not the OP should be paid or flogged. I'm just saying if you agreed to five years, I don't care if the law says one.

I still don't think the OP should be paid. I do think that casinos should be more active in finding out why people are excluding themselves from gambling. Asking an addict if they're an addict doesn't always provide the most honest answer. I've been smoking for decades but if you ask me if I'm an addict I'll probably say no. I just keep going outside every 2 hours and smoking one so I don't have to punch people. (Nobody appreciates the sacrifices I make.) I'm not sure how often people ask for these exclusions but if a player is found to be asking for them and then coming back repeatedly it might be a sign of a problem. If a player asks for a lengthy one it might be a good idea to have at least a brief discussion as to why.

Casinos aren't legally obligated to do these things but when any company deals with clients that can become addicted to their product there should be a moral obligation to make at least some effort to weed out the ones that have.

To the OP: You should have just said "I'm an addict." This entire thread probably wouldn't have even been necessary.

 

[bigjohn]

Upon what information/evidence do you base your assertion that the casino wouldn't have paid any winnings?

I'd suggest it's a slap in the face to Ian (and other accredited casinos) to suggest this would happen.

I notice you did not highlight anything, please point to where in my post did I assert that the casino would not pay.

 

[funex]

Agreed - this isn't like the OPs previous case at all. In that case, he asked if the account was open, they said yes, he deposited twice and then tried to deposit again and found his account locked. He asked why and they said that his SE wasn't over. THAT'S why he got his deposits back, because in that case any winnings wouldn't have been paid either.

This case was different - he asked to reopen his account, they checked to make sure a year had passed, they reopened the account, he deposited and lost. If he would have won, there's no reason to think he wouldn't get paid. Although I suppose nobody can really be sure of that since it went the other way, but it does nobody any good to speculate or assume that they wouldn't have paid him if he'd won.

First person to recognize that both cases are distinct.

 

[Cleveland]

I notice you did not highlight anything, please point to where in my post did I assert that the casino would not pay.

At the risk of starting a war, I think he was referring to the below statement:

And, to further my point, if the player loses and the casino does not refund the deposit they are saying the player was allowed to deposit and lost fair and square or if the player wins and they do not pay out the winnings they are saying the player was not allowed to deposit. IMO they should not be able to have it both ways.

^ Saying that in this thread would lead to thinking that this casino was trying to have it both ways. If you were referring to casinos in general that statement / analogy can very well be true. Since we are referencing a specific casino that statement auto points to Ian and co., etc. At least that's the way it reads to me. Just sayin. Love you man

 

[bigjohn]

Thanks, the thread had taken a general turn but I'm the bad guy.

Something about slapping Ian? I don't know.

 

[Cleveland]

Thanks, the thread had taken a general turn but I'm the bad guy.

Something about slapping Ian? I don't know.

Wasn't saying you're the bad guy. At this stage it seems the thread has run it's course and we are all repeating ourselves. I can't remember and I don't feel like going back to check but I think Ian or some rep mentioned they were looking into something? Not sure, but perhaps a slight policy change or way of dealing with this stuff? I know they said it won't change the OP's case status though, just can't remember the rest of the post.

 

[Richas]

I'm sure you're getting tired of me going back and forth with you ....I'll make this my last response as I agree fully with your last post. Which does lead me to my last point, which is player responsibility. If they choose to lie about their reasoning then it's on them. At a certain point they have to take responsibility for their problem. That' with any addiction. People around them can only do so much.

I'd rather you carried on to be honest - especially regarding centralised or one stop shop self exclusion accross many/all sites. I'd welcome your view on that.

As for personal responsibility. I agree, the one with the problem needs to deal with it. There is much in GA that I don't like but personal responsibility is not their weakness.

For sites and for the industry as a whole pushing back and blaming the individual (stressing personal responsibility) is not the right approach. A legit business dealing morally and with integrity and seeking to meet their regulatory obligations re protecting the vulnerable have a job to do. Gambling sites have problem gamblers seeking their services and those PG can be highly cash generative but the industry needs to take a longer term view, to have sites that proactively help PGs, honour self exclusion requests (however phrased) and contribute to help and research too.

The whole business has some victims, the best companies show they are the best by dealing with them well. It is their job too - the legitimate legal and respectable business needs to show it is good at dealing with PGs not just because it is right, a cost of doing business, but also because by proactively helping they legitimise their brand and the industry as a whole.

 

[Nifty29]

Thanks, the thread had taken a general turn but I'm the bad guy.

Something about slapping Ian? I don't know.

Lol no I don't think that at all john.

I was referring to where you stated the casino can't have it both ways I.e. not refund deposits, AND refuse winnings. I thought you were inferring that BB/Ian would have reneged if the op won. If I misread you, I certainly apologize.

In any case, my comment was general in that there is no evidence to suggest BB wouldn't have paid winnings. In fact, the rule they quoted would compel them to pay as they legitimately reopened the OPs account.

There's no doubt in my mind that the OP chose accredited casinos because they thought they would have a better chance of forcing them to refund losses via drumming up forum support etc. Otherwise, why not just go to a casino they hadn't SE from? As Judge Judy says.....

 

[funex]

Lol no I don't think that at all john.

I was referring to where you stated the casino can't have it both ways I.e. not refund deposits, AND refuse winnings. I thought you were inferring that BB/Ian would have reneged if the op won. If I misread you, I certainly apologize.

In any case, my comment was general in that there is no evidence to suggest BB wouldn't have paid winnings. In fact, the rule they quoted would compel them to pay as they legitimately reopened the OPs account.

There's no doubt in my mind that the OP chose accredited casinos because they thought they would have a better chance of forcing them to refund losses via drumming up forum support etc. Otherwise, why not just go to a casino they hadn't SE from? As Judge Judy says.....

This is my last reply to you.

1. Every account that I have with accredited casinos were closed (selfexclusion)
2. I didn't go to another casino because I didn't want to go through the process of validating my documents and having moved away from my home country wouldn't help the process. (haven't mentioned this before, doesn't really matters)
3. While looking at the list of accredited casinos, I went through the ones I had an account with in order to play safely, asking if I indeed was self excluded or not.

Simple..

 

[Jasminebed]

We gamblers indulge in a hobby with a strong potential for addiction. There's few of us at CM that can't name an occasion when we reversed a cashout, or failed to cashout a decent win when we could. Or played it back from our ewallets over the next few days/weeks.

Most people that drink are not alcoholics. But even that group can over-indulge, or have periods where it spins dangerously close to addiction.

Addictions become best friends, and it's hard to face the prospect of never again. Some people take many attempts before they master the monkey on their back.

And some, like myself, might need a breather from time to time. I've taken a break a couple of times. I took one right after that big win last fall, until I'd received all my funds and spent them as planned.

I took one to keep me from frittering away my days instead of getting on with spring cleaning and yard work.

I took one when I started to chase losses after a bad losing spell, always a bad sign. Could I have did these things without asking for a short term self-exclusion? Probably, but if the casino is willing to work with me so I don't fall over the edge, why not use those tools?

I think deposit limits are more than just reminders, they are in place to help players manage to gamble responsibly. I use a prepaid card, if I don't load cash or win money, I don't play, that's my deposit limit.

If you drink heavily every day for 20 years, you will be an alcoholic. If you drink a beer every day all summer, but don't except for the odd occasion through the rest of the year, you probably aren't.

Sometimes a temporary cessation can sort what's hobby from habit, and habit from addiction.

I think short term, medium term and permanent self-exclusions all have their places.

 

[bigjohn]

Wasn't saying you're the bad guy. At this stage it seems the thread has run it's course and we are all repeating ourselves. I can't remember and I don't feel like going back to check but I think Ian or some rep mentioned they were looking into something? Not sure, but perhaps a slight policy change or way of dealing with this stuff? I know they said it won't change the OP's case status though, just can't remember the rest of the post.

I wasn't inferring anything about your words and my thanks were genuine.

 

[harmont]

Good morning all.

It's another busy morning here at Butlers HQ but just wanted to pop in and let you know I'm aware of this case and looking in to it from my end. I shall reply to the OP's PM as soon as I have more information.

Thanks

Ian

Ian are you a rep for Broadway gaming