Self Exclusion - CM Accredited Casino

[dionysus]

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.

There's several reasons - the spouse plays the account, you're trying to limit the venues you use to build loyalty, people like me honestly forget there's somewhere they don't like, re-deposit, then go, oh right, THAT'S why I stopped playing here...and yes, lack of self-discipline. Some people spend more than they like or want - it doesn't necessarily mean addiction, just poor fore-thought. For example, I might play, and then be, right, dammit, that 100 was for the plan we made in our budget, or preferred to spend elsewhere.

Anyway, if you personally feel gambling is a problem, self-excluding alone isn't the answer. One is, stop visiting gambling forums. Another is getting gamblock. Another is going to meetings or counselling. The self-exclusion is a tool, a Band-Aid - not the cure.

 

[Nifty29]

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.

Ok.

I think you misread the Kleenex bit....it was a reference to what the OP suggested I did whilst reading the forums, the details of which are pretty disgusting and childish....so figured I'd make light of it rather than get even so to speak.

It certainly wasn't a lack of empathy. I have a family member who almost took their own life due to CG, so I get it. It's also important to make CG's responsible for their actions, as giving them a way out all the time and excusing them does them more harm than good.

As I said, I sincerely doubt BB would have denied winnings had the OP won. Nothing they've done in the past suggests they would do such a thing. So, the bets were valid and binding...either way.

 

[funex]

Installing Gamblock.. 22%

Bye

 

[mrmark21]

There's several reasons - the spouse plays the account, you're trying to limit the venues you use to build loyalty, people like me honestly forget there's somewhere they don't like, re-deposit, then go, oh right, THAT'S why I stopped playing here...and yes, lack of self-discipline. Some people spend more than they like or want - it doesn't necessarily mean addiction, just poor fore-thought. For example, I might play, and then be, right, dammit, that 100 was for the plan we made in our budget, or preferred to spend elsewhere.

Anyway, if you personally feel gambling is a problem, self-excluding alone isn't the answer. One is, stop visiting gambling forums. Another is getting gamblock. Another is going to meetings or counselling. The self-exclusion is a tool, a Band-Aid - not the cure.

I agree with this. I've self excluded at some casinos to just get the point across that I'm not happy with their service I wasnt going to simply close my account because that can always be reopened later. I have no gambling issues but I agree with Dion there are other reasons to SE besides gambling issues.

 

[IanO]

@ Funex. I am in the process of having the information on the site clarified, but please note this will not affect the outcome of your case.

Regarding the term self exclusion, I and many other posters have already provided examples where requesting self exclusion does not equate to a problem with gambling.

 

[The Dude]

...You clearly agree to
refund all monies deposited by players who are part of the CND and yet you agreed to reopen an account previously excluded.

You allowed me to reopen the account after I requested a 5 year exclusion, to which you agreed to uphold, even though this is contradictory to your guidelines. As a problem gambler, of course I am going to ask to
reopen the account. You have a responsibility to prevent players like me from participating in any games for the duration of the exclusion period regardless of what your license recommends. Had I have known my request
to exclude for 5 years was not acceptable, I would have made sure to enforce special circumstances on my account and to ask you to never allow me to reopen it.

I trust you will relay this to your management team and settle the matter before I contact the various organisations you associate yourselves with on your responsible gaming section.

...

There is no way that the casino knew that you were/are a problem gambler. In fact, you have been more or less active in this forum discussing wins, and other casino chit chat. Your public persona negates your claims - except perhaps that link I posted earlier where the same thing happened last year.

It was you who requested the account to reopened - not them. They did not tempt you back in with special promos, etc., you made the choice to visit their site and reopen your account. I agree with a number of other members, if you had won a crapload of money, you would have been on cloud nine thinking all is ok now, and you would have kept going with perhaps a more disastrous outcome.

Instead of threatening Butler's Bingo, get help and take responsibility for your actions.

 

[Cleveland]

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.

This case can be argued both ways as there are many reasons people set limits on their deposits or SE. I myself have done similar and requested reps temporarily remove the deposit limit or the lift the SE. Since I chose to set them and they weren't for addictions I did expect them to remove them.

When it comes to having an addiction it's extremely important to move past blaming others for any part of it. Even if you feel you're not completely at fault. That teaches a bit of humility. Combine that with self responsibility and you're looking like a damn fine guy my friend (not in that way I'm happily married, and only batting for one team). As someone who deals with / sees addiction daily in others, and has their own addictions I think those two points are fairly important...imo.

 

[Cleveland]

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.

So what you're saying is for someone like me when I requested limits set or SE for "x" period of time then realized those limits were way to harsh.....I shouldn't have been allowed to change any of them? Similar to setting a grocery budget, or thinking I needed a certain amount of time off to save for something, then realizing I didn't need as much time as I thought. So now I have to wait the entire period because I was off in my calculations? Granted there was a period of time I thought I might have a problem so I needed to take a break but that's still my choice and my test to prove to myself I didn't have a problem. But even on those I didn't say I have a problem.

Or what if someones spouse didn't like them playing so they promised to take off for 3 years (to satisfy the spouse), then down the road they break up / divorce. So now the person has to wait the full three years even though they are no longer married. This last one was off the top of my head but the point is with millions of players I'm sure the casinos hears and sees all kinds of reasons people set limits or SE, and they would be fools not to take that into account.

I understand your view point but your view is skewed. You need to state why you want limits to apply if they are for a gambling problem.

 

[Cleveland]

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.

Reading some of your post in this thread .....take it from me you don't want law to be applied as black and white. Room to apply favor and take into account surrounding details is extremely important.

 

[Refilliates Casinos]

To the OP: Knowing you had asked for 5 years exclusion and then contacting the casino after 1 year does seem a little underhanded. With over 2,000 casinos to choose from, choosing those that you had excluded yourself from, makes it seem like you had a preconceived "can’t lose" type of plan in your head. Seeing as you had done it in the past, you might have figured it would be worth doing again. You chose accredited casinos as you figured they would face public scrutiny here and probably assumed they would have the financial resources to pay you and spare any embarrassment or negativity around their failure to apply your SE request. This theory is supported by your thread title.

Devil’s advocate: It seems that in this case, the OP and the casino are both wrong. The amicable solution (IMO) is for the casino to keep half and refund half (less any fees). The OP loses some money and hopefully learns a lesson. The casino loses some face publicly for having a "poor" SE policy / process in place. I would like to add for Ian: if he asked for 5 years, then it should have been 5 years – no casino or regulatory body should have the power to justify or validate a deviation from a player’s original request, irrespective of the reason to exclude oneself.

I guess the lesson for operators here is that if a player says: "Self Exclude me" for 1 day or 5 years, the request is honoured in full. No matter what the player says or does, the account remains closed. They will need to find another casino to play at until the SE period expires naturally.

 

[gagamel]

Dear funex:
You are looking in the demons eyes and you try to make the same thing as last year. Last year it worked for you. This year it does not work.
But that`s not your problem. In my opinion you are a gambler with a problem. You don`t know when to quit and you search for others who are guilty for your situation.
I saw this demon too, and I was very happy to have professional help. To ask for help is not a sign of weakness. Only a strong mind can ask for help and can say to himself that he is on a wrong path.
Forget the money you lost, look for your future and please take all professional help you can get.
I wish you all the best
Gagamel

 

[chayton]

I requested in 2012 for a 5 year self exclusion period.

I have checked the T&C and it stands:

"21.2 You may at any time request that Your Account be closed for the reason of problem gambling. The account will be closed without hesitation and will remain closed forever. Should we deem it unwise or unhealthy for any account to be reopened, then it will be closed forever at the sole discretion of Broadway Gaming Ltd."

Not much more than this is stated in their T&C.

The OP in his second post in this thread quoted the term about PERMANENT self exclusion if you ask for your account to be closed because of a gambling problem - but chose not to go that route and didn't mention problem gambling at all, instead leaving a door open to come back.

IMO the casino is not at fault here.

 

[Richas]

So what you're saying is for someone like me when I requested limits set or SE for "x" period of time then realized those limits were way to harsh.....I shouldn't have been allowed to change any of them? Similar to setting a grocery budget, or thinking I needed a certain amount of time off to save for something, then realizing I didn't need as much time as I thought. So now I have to wait the entire period because I was off in my calculations? Granted there was a period of time I thought I might have a problem so I needed to take a break but that's still my choice and my test to prove to myself I didn't have a problem. But even on those I didn't say I have a problem.

Or what if someones spouse didn't like them playing so they promised to take off for 3 years (to satisfy the spouse), then down the road they break up / divorce. So now the person has to wait the full three years even though they are no longer married. This last one was off the top of my head but the point is with millions of players I'm sure the casinos hears and sees all kinds of reasons people set limits or SE, and they would be fools not to take that into account.

I understand your view point but your view is skewed. You need to state why you want limits to apply if they are for a gambling problem.

Yes I am saying that if you set a limit that limit should be adhered to. Change to limits should be relatively difficult and delayed.

Now for things like deposit limits - a weekly limit or monthly limit may want changing over time but it should come with a cooling off period. If you want to up the weekly limit you have set then you should have to wait a week, you have to have that week's protection. With a full week's notice you can have a new (higher limit). If you want to lower your limit that can be implemented immediately. Monthly limit, wait a month for te new limit to kick in. Daily a day.

As for multi year exclusions, yes if you say to the site you want out for three years it should be three years. You may later regret your decision but it is your decision. The site should not go back on that agreement. The whole point of self exclusion for a period is to lock your future self in to a decision.

As for centralised self exclusion - I'm inclined to have simple options 1 year 5 year and life. Being locked out of all sites with one call is a powerful tool so you would need some way of stepping back from it but for it to keep its power that needs to be hard, for me 1 year's cooling off on a 5 year or lifetime ban feels right to me.

There have been some perverse outcomes for lapsed self excluded gamblers in the states where identity checks and tax witholding kick in at $5k. You end up with problem gamblers self excluding (or being court excluded), breaking that exclusion - winning a jackpot and not getting paid. In some state's they even get prosecuted for trespass for going to the casino they are excluded from.

Self Exclusion is a complex area, there are lots of issues around it but the basic principle that you are binding your future self needs to be respected by the sites.

 

[swampwitch]

I believe one more thing needs to be done for/to the OP. Ban him. Ban him from Butler. Ban him from any sister sites. Put him on a black list. Every black list. RTG, Netent, Micro, Playtech. BAN HIM NOW. Forever and ever amen.
If he indeed has a problem and he deposits and loses thousands, he's not only hurting himself, but his family and everyone he owes money. The charitable thing to do is ban him.
If he's a grifter and a serial reneger, the smart business decision is to ban him.

 

[Cleveland]

Yes I am saying that if you set a limit that limit should be adhered to. Change to limits should be relatively difficult and delayed.

Now for things like deposit limits - a weekly limit or monthly limit may want changing over time but it should come with a cooling off period. If you want to up the weekly limit you have set then you should have to wait a week, you have to have that week's protection. With a full week's notice you can have a new (higher limit). If you want to lower your limit that can be implemented immediately. Monthly limit, wait a month for te new limit to kick in. Daily a day.

As for multi year exclusions, yes if you say to the site you want out for three years it should be three years. You may later regret your decision but it is your decision. The site should not go back on that agreement. The whole point of self exclusion for a period is to lock your future self in to a decision.

As for centralised self exclusion - I'm inclined to have simple options 1 year 5 year and life. Being locked out of all sites with one call is a powerful tool so you would need some way of stepping back from it but for it to keep its power that needs to be hard, for me 1 year's cooling off on a 5 year or lifetime ban feels right to me.

There have been some perverse outcomes for lapsed self excluded gamblers in the states where identity checks and tax witholding kick in at $5k. You end up with problem gamblers self excluding (or being court excluded), breaking that exclusion - winning a jackpot and not getting paid. In some state's they even get prosecuted for trespass for going to the casino they are excluded from.

Self Exclusion is a complex area, there are lots of issues around it but the basic principle that you are binding your future self needs to be respected by the sites.

So what's the difference between the weekly / daily deposit limit and the SE? Some people might have a gambling problem and they choose to limit the amount of money they can deposit to keep them from draining their bank accounts. Having a week for the change to take place doesn't now negate the gambling problem does it? After that week is over they could very well go into debt and spend all of their bill money.

On the flip side as I'm sure you see. Someone who doesn't have a problem would want that limit to be able to be raised or lowered based on how their fiances are looking and perhaps how they feel, which would and should be in their right to. So how do you protect one person and not punish the other. Simple you ask the reason for the limit.

The SE and the weekly limits are parts of the same coin. You're being very strict with the SE rules but flexible with the weekly limits. Not fair my friend. If I had to guess I would say it's because it's easier for someone to see why the weekly limits should be allowed to be adjusted. But the point is millions of reasons out there for both. If you have a gambling problem then it needs to be stated, and the casino should be able to ask the reason for SE.

 

[gagamel]

Back to funex:
He made a mistake and he knows it. And he lost a lot of money, I believe this guy. He wants his money back to play more to make a profit. To play further.... and so on. He is addicted at this time and made a little trick go play more. I can feel with him and I don`t think that he his a bad person or a fraudster. He is at this time a gambler with a big problem. And I think this forum is also for people who have this problem.
If he can make a therapy in the future and he will read again his writings here he will surely be ashamed. But please be fair with him, slots make the same feelings as taking cocaine or speed.
Ivan, tsar of russia said: You told me that I`m a monster, but are we not all humans?

 

[bigjohn]

I would be interested what the casino said to the OP when he requested a five year exclusion.

Did they say, "Sure Sir, no problem, see you in five years." Or did they say, "I'm sorry Sir, we only do exclusion for one year max unless you have a compulsive gambling problem. Do you have a compulsive gambling problem?" I think this makes a big difference.

Earlier in this thread I said I thought the casino should pay either way and people said that would open the casinos up to free-rollers, I disagree, it would not if they don't let them play.

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. IMO the reason they should pay is purely for punitive reasons and perhaps should be paid into a problem gambler charity.

If a casino wants to offer SE and they don't believe it will be 100% secure they should not offer it. From what I have read on here it is far too serious of a problem to be handled in a lackadaisical way. It also seems to me that the decision to unlock a players account should be made at the managerial level and by e-mail, you should not be able to call CS and have it re-opened just like that.

 

[Richas]

So what's the difference between the weekly / daily deposit limit and the SE? Some people might have a gambling problem and they choose to limit the amount of money they can deposit to keep them from draining their bank accounts. Having a week for the change to take place doesn't now negate the gambling problem does it? After that week is over they could very well go into debt and spend all of their bill money.

On the flip side as I'm sure you see. Someone who doesn't have a problem would want that limit to be able to be raised or lowered based on how their fiances are looking and perhaps how they feel, which would and should be in their right to. So how do you protect one person and not punish the other. Simple you ask the reason for the limit.

The SE and the weekly limits are parts of the same coin. You're being very strict with the SE rules but flexible with the weekly limits. Not fair my friend. If I had to guess I would say it's because it's easier for someone to see why the weekly limits should be allowed to be adjusted. But the point is millions of reasons out there for both.

If the limits are instantly flexible they are not limits at all. At best they are a warning, in which case go for it, set as many warnings at whatever levels and times you like, but they are not limits.

Limits (or warnings) are a less serious step than SE. They are a tool for responsible gambling. Self set limits are of a different order to self set exclusion. If someone says they do not want to gamble for 5 years on a site or all sites then the sites should respect that decision. A rule that after 1 year they can opt back in might be OK but it has to come with a significant cooling off period or it is not a 5 Year option at all it is a one year option.

 

[dunover]

If the limits are instantly flexible they are not limits at all. At best they are a warning, in which case go for it, set as many warnings at whatever levels and times you like, but they are not limits.

Limits (or warnings) are a less serious step than SE. They are a tool for responsible gambling. Self set limits are of a different order to self set exclusion. If someone says they do not want to gamble for 5 years on a site or all sites then the sites should respect that decision. A rule that after 1 year they can opt back in might be OK but it has to come with a significant cooling off period or it is not a 5 Year option at all it is a one year option.

I have to agree with that observation. One analogy springs to mind - when is a 5-year gaol term a 5-year gaol term??? Not when it's a non-violent offence and release on parole comes after 20 months. Not for violent offences when the parole comes after 40 months. In fact you'd have to be a complete fool to serve the whole 60 months.
So, as regards SE, what does 5 years really mean? It certainly doesn't seem to mean the full 60 months as it should, yet several sites that allow 5 year SE's will actually enforce it. Some want the (usually) addict to return and find a convenient clause in the LGA to allow SE'd players back early.
It's a bloody shambles. No consistency.

 

[gagamel]

If I ask a casino for a 5 year banning and they don`t ask me why, well I ask myself why don`t they ask me?
Casinos ask me every BS 278 times, but not the really important things? It`s like: Why didn`t you take our bonus, it`s the best around. You took our bonus, but you made a mistake with paragraph 12.45 in our T/C and we are proud to suspend you from our bonus list and so on.
But in this case there is a gambler with an illness.
It`s OK that the casino don`t pay him, because in one year he has the same problem and we all the same thread.
I don`t want to defend the thread starter, just want to say his problem could be our problem tomorrow or next month or year.

 

[Cleveland]

If the limits are instantly flexible they are not limits at all. At best they are a warning, in which case go for it, set as many warnings at whatever levels and times you like, but they are not limits.

Limits (or warnings) are a less serious step than SE. They are a tool for responsible gambling. Self set limits are of a different order to self set exclusion. If someone says they do not want to gamble for 5 years on a site or all sites then the sites should respect that decision. A rule that after 1 year they can opt back in might be OK but it has to come with a significant cooling off period or it is not a 5 Year option at all it is a one year option.

I didn't say they should be instant. I responded to your statement in regards to having a week cool down period.

So who decided the level of importance of those two terms? I would think someone realizing they have a gambling problem and deciding to limit their weekly deposits is just as important as someone who decides to quit all together. So are you the person who is deciding which request is more important? Why should a weekly limit be flexible but not the SE? If a alcoholic is able to limit themselves to one drink a night or week, awesome for them. Some people might have to stop all together.

And that rule you just stated IS the cool off period. He had one year to think about this, which is why they have a one year minimum. He didn't SE then rejoin right away.

So I make heavy deposits at the casino and then decide to SE for a period of 1 year as I need to attend to an important business merger that I figure will take approx 1 year and advise the casino of such. I let them know the casino has become a distraction and I need to get this deal completed. For whatever reason the merger goes through quickly and I'm finished in 5 months instead of a year. The casino would be foolish to lose good business and not let me play again because I said a year was needed for the merger. It would be funny telling Bill Gates that he can't play because he said he needed a year to complete a deal. He decides to play else where.

Yes I use the extreme as a way of pointing out that this isn't black and white. Easy fix is to request the reason for the SE. But for some reason you're completely against what is such a quick and easy thing that can be automated.

 

[Richas]

I didn't say they should be instant. I responded to your statement in regards to having a week cool down period.

So who decided the level of importance of those two terms? I would think someone realizing they have a gambling problem and deciding to limit their weekly deposits is just as important as someone who decides to quit all together. So are you the person who is deciding which request is more important? Why should a weekly limit be flexible but not the SE? If a alcoholic is able to limit themselves to one drink a night or week, awesome for them. Some people might have to stop all together.

And that rule you just stated IS the cool off period. He had one year to think about this, which is why they have a one year minimum. He didn't SE then rejoin right away.

So I make heavy deposits at the casino and then decide to SE for a period of 1 year as I need to attend to an important business merger that I figure will take approx 1 year and advise the casino of such. I let them know the casino has become a distraction and I need to get this deal completed. For whatever reason the merger goes through quickly and I'm finished in 5 months instead of a year. The casino would be foolish to lose good business and not let me play again because I said a year was needed for the merger. It would be funny telling Bill Gates that he can't play because he said he needed a year to complete a deal. He decides to play else where.

Yes I use the extreme as a way of pointing out that this isn't black and white. Easy fix is to request the reason for the SE. But for some reason you're completely against what is such a quick and easy thing that can be automated.

Well its me who thinks that choosing to self exclude is a bigger step than setting a weekly limit. The weekly limit is a tool, a reminder that you have already met what you pre committed to. It is not choosing to quit.

I'm glad you are challenging me on this and you have made a strong point regarding a small minority who choose to exclude for practical event driven reasons. They are though a small, probably tiny, proportion of those self excluding. I would also suggest that if someone lacks the personal will power to just not go there and so seeks self exclusion then they have issues with gambling.

Still let us take the excluder type you describe as read. Practical not problem and the circumstances change. Well I have three points,

1) self exclusion is not really designed for this rare, possibly mythological beast

2) weakening self exclusion to help this person/group escape from their error weakens/destroys the benefits of self exclusion for those it is designed for

3) someone self excluding for a bit longer than they would now like to is a lot less damaging than letting a problem gambler come back to gambling and destroy themselves and their family.

I think we can agree on some things though, the rules should be clear, consistent, based upon logical criteria/ time-scales and be enforced.

I suspect we can also agree that it does not work very well right now.

I hope we can agree that a system of centralised self exclusion that let people exclude from say all UK licensed sites (plus those sites opting in to it) could be of significant benefit for problem gamblers.

 

[Nifty29]

I would be interested what the casino said to the OP when he requested a five year exclusion.

Did they say, "Sure Sir, no problem, see you in five years." Or did they say, "I'm sorry Sir, we only do exclusion for one year max unless you have a compulsive gambling problem. Do you have a compulsive gambling problem?" I think this makes a big difference.

Earlier in this thread I said I thought the casino should pay either way and people said that would open the casinos up to free-rollers, I disagree, it would not if they don't let them play.

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. IMO the reason they should pay is purely for punitive reasons and perhaps should be paid into a problem gambler charity.

If a casino wants to offer SE and they don't believe it will be 100% secure they should not offer it. From what I have read on here it is far too serious of a problem to be handled in a lackadaisical way. It also seems to me that the decision to unlock a players account should be made at the managerial level and by e-mail, you should not be able to call CS and have it re-opened just like that.

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.

 

[Cleveland]

Well its me who thinks that choosing to self exclude is a bigger step than setting a weekly limit. The weekly limit is a tool, a reminder that you have already met what you pre committed to. It is not choosing to quit.

I'm glad you are challenging me on this and you have made a strong point regarding a small minority who choose to exclude for practical event driven reasons. They are though a small, probably tiny, proportion of those self excluding. I would also suggest that if someone lacks the personal will power to just not go there and so seeks self exclusion then they have issues with gambling.

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.

Still let us take the excluder type you describe as read. Practical not problem and the circumstances change. Well I have three points,

1) self exclusion is not really designed for this rare, possibly mythological beast

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

2) weakening self exclusion to help this person/group escape from their error weakens/destroys the benefits of self exclusion for those it is designed for

3) someone self excluding for a bit longer than they would now like to is a lot less damaging than letting a problem gambler come back to gambling and destroy themselves and their family.

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.

I think we can agree on some things though, the rules should be clear, consistent, based upon logical criteria/ time-scales and be enforced.

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.

 

[chayton]

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.

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.

 

[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