Self Exclusion - CM Accredited Casino
- Thread starter funex
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Location
- UK
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…
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Location
- Bexhill on sea, England
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!
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?
But then again, it's the UK.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
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.
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:
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.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Location
- Wigan
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
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
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?
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
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
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?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
You might be right, this quote from yours is interesting:
If the casino have replied to OP that they only use one year long SE, or similar, then it's a different story.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
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.
Break the chain and quit.
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.
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.
You're probably right.
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"
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
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.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Location
- Wigan
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?
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
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.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
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.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Location
- Ontario
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.
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
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Location
- Iowa
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.
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.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
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.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
FYI cooling off post a self excl period is mandatory under UKGC rules.
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
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
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.
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.
Similar threads
- Featured
