1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Self Exclusion - Deposits - Views?

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by Casino2014man, Sep 5, 2015.

    Sep 5, 2015
  1. Casino2014man

    Casino2014man Non-Gambler

    Occupation:
    Noneya
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Hi All

    I am just wondering what the general consensus from people on stuff like this is...

    For example, lets say you exclude from a casino site, then sign up for one with a completely different name, and look, and you do not realise that you cannot play on this site as they are related and you are excluded from the other one.. In fact their parent company with the license has no relation to the name of either casino.

    Should the deposits be refunded if the company has not picked up on it either? If you withdraw it is almost certainly going to be voided when you send your documents in, so you had no chance at a win. Alternatively, is this more my fault, so I just move on, bite the bullet. I just don't know.

    I appear to have fallen foul of this recently at a casino operator, and am not sure how far to pursue it.. I genuinely had no clue they were connected, and signed up, made some deposits, then their license caught my eye a little later. They did not realise about my account until I brought it to their attention that they may be connected sites, then it took the girl ages on chat to find out if it was a problem..

    Let me know

    PS - Not EM.
     
  2. Sep 5, 2015
  3. KasinoKing

    KasinoKing WebMeister & Slotaholic.. CAG MM PABnonaccred webmeister

    Occupation:
    House-Husband and Casino Advisor
    Location:
    Bexhill on sea, England
    100% - if you are excluded from a casino, so that if you won you would only get your deposit back - then if you lose you should also get your deposit back. Anything else is not fair on the players.

    If casinos have these rules, they should bloody well get their software to ensure that excluded players CAN NOT deposit in the first place - it's NOT rocket science for goodness sake! :sob:

    BTW: My opinion on self exclusion is, that if any player feels the need to do this because they don't have the will power to just not deposit any more at a particular casino for any reason, then in all honesty they shouldn't be gambling at all. Instead of moving on to a new casino - they should move on to a less risky hobby to spend their time & money on.

    KK
     
    4 people like this.
  4. Sep 5, 2015
  5. Casino2014man

    Casino2014man Non-Gambler

    Occupation:
    Noneya
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Thanks for the response KK - the casino in question's initial response to me was 'unfortunately, we will not be able to refund you as you have already played with these funds.'

    in response to:

    'BTW: My opinion on self exclusion is, that if any player feels the need to do this because they don't have the will power to just not deposit any more at a particular casino for any reason, then in all honesty they shouldn't be gambling at all. Instead of moving on to a new casino - they should move on to a less risky hobby to spend their time & money on'

    I do agree, completely, and this was something that has gone through my mind numerous times - however for me the problem was a few months ago I had a bit of a meltdown weekend where I drank too much and blew a load of winnings I had from a week before which drove me a bit spare - I excluded from a few and set limits at the rest.

    I have drastically sorted myself out since then - the memories have lasted - only succumbing to a few reversals here and there - and I give up a few months at a time when I get bored.

    On another note - had I known they were related casinos - I would clearly never have deposited there, because its a lose-lose situation :(
     
  6. Sep 5, 2015
  7. paul7388

    paul7388 Meister Member MM

    Occupation:
    not a lot
    Location:
    glasgow scotland
    Yes they should refund deposits theres been so many threads about this lately.

    I personally have never got this self exclusion thing. Self exclusion was designed so as if a player has a gambling problem they self exclude and can no longer gamble there. It was never designed for people to self exclude from casinos all over the place just because they had had a bad day or some other reason.

    If players no longer want to play at a casino they should close the account. If an account is closed and the player wants to play there again the casino would reopen the account or let them open a new account. This self exclusion thing is a whole mess and players and casinos are equally to blame for the problems that are arising.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Sep 5, 2015
  9. spintee

    spintee Meister Member webby mm2

    Occupation:
    gambler :)
    Location:
    Northants
    Have they a U.K licence, I see somewhere I think a link that all deposits should be returned,

    I my self think its bang out of order taking deposits and than ONLY when it comes to withdraw find out out its to late, They should now at least have measures in place, Its been going on for to long,

    Do you really think they do not know when you sign up? There laughing all the way to the bank, But on my words it will come back to haunt them, Just with the the banks PPI, Had to refund billions back, It will not belong before the UKGC wake up and demand all deposits back, Not only will this hurt the casino's pockets and platform provider but will take alot of there time and effort, I also see in the near future a load of fines being handed out, Its not happing just yet as they do not no what day it is let alone anythink else, But it will happen,


    I have just been on live chat with betsafe, Trying to find out if had an account already, He said not by that email or name, I said I only gave my first name so how did you get me 2nd name? He said I must of typed it in? NO I did not, Any way after a few minutes I see that they are mrsmiths sister site, So beggars believe when I went on to chat and added my email it must of flagged my account at mrsmith and used my full name, Only explanation, Any way no mention on mrsmith but when I signed up went back to chat and was given all the clear that I could play at both site,

    Has any one else got accounts at both places? So if my name can flag up in a chat than surely for other operators its not that hard to detected somebody,
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Sep 5, 2015
  11. Casino2014man

    Casino2014man Non-Gambler

    Occupation:
    Noneya
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ok, no idea how you did that Spintee - But..

    These are the exact two casinos I am talking about.. I wasn't going to name them until I heard from the rep but since you mentioned them :p

    I excluded at Mr Smith ages ago, and yesterday after seeing glowing reviews on Betsafe and their quick withdrawals here, I signed up thinking they were a totally independent casino.. So yeah, UK licensed and accredited - Betsson.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Sep 5, 2015
  13. spintee

    spintee Meister Member webby mm2

    Occupation:
    gambler :)
    Location:
    Northants
    :)

    I had no idea that they was connected, But there should be no excuse, They knew my full name when only tapped in my first name to get the chat up, So if the chat can flag my name than surley signing up to the site should of flagged something,

    Will be intreseting to see what they come up with,

    I too seen the good reviews and swift withdraws so checked cheeked them out, Just a heads up for anybody that to get the 50 free spins than the min depo is £15 NOT £10 like the deposit match
     
  14. Sep 5, 2015
  15. mathsboy1975

    mathsboy1975 Senior Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    software engineer
    Location:
    UK London
    I had this very experience with GetLucky casino last week - I self excluded from ComeOn and did not realise that it was part of the same group. I deposited and lost about £100. I then discovered one day to find the new GetLucky account was closed. Upon asking why I was informed that it was down to the ComeOn self exclusion.

    The CS informed me that they would refund my deposits "if I would like" to which I replied yes. Unfortunately though they require some IBAN and SWIFT numbers and as it was a credit card deposit I cannot find any mention of either on my online card accounts page. I guess I will just be philosophical about it but I really do wish that new account blocks were in place when you try to open one that you should not be opening. I see no reason why a simple email filter can not be applied (I used same email for ComeOn and GetLucky accounts).
     
  16. Sep 5, 2015
  17. interlog

    interlog Senior Member MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    London
    It is not rocket science. A combination of email address, first and last name and date of birth (all 3 or 2 of them) should be sufficient to block an account being opened automatically. It is a simple database search query on any of the databases a casino group holds.

    Now, if a player is self excluded and signs up with false details elsewhere, then there is no sympathy and nothing should be refunded in case they are found out.
     
  18. Sep 5, 2015
  19. Casino2014man

    Casino2014man Non-Gambler

    Occupation:
    Noneya
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Totally agree with this.
     
  20. Sep 5, 2015
  21. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    This is weird because I SE'd from Mr Smith after big gains (that was the first site I played RR at) and am currently depositing and withdrawing fine at Betsafe. :confused:

    On the original point, yes the UKGC requires that any account suspended/closed for reasons of SE whether a duplicate at one specific site or another on the same licence should have bets voided and deposits returned
     
  22. Sep 5, 2015
  23. Casino2014man

    Casino2014man Non-Gambler

    Occupation:
    Noneya
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    They told me this is not allowed - and immediately froze my betsafe account when I pointed it out on live chat..

    Also, I told them about this UKGC advice, and was told no, deposits spent so no refunds. I have sent a full complaint and pm'd the rep.
     
  24. Sep 5, 2015
  25. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    In that case as I'm well down at Betsafe since SE from Mr Smith then I would get the difference between my deposits and w/d's back???:D
     
  26. Sep 5, 2015
  27. Richas

    Richas Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Project Manager
    Location:
    UK
    Self Exclusion should be quite simple - unfortunately it isn't.

    Clearly there should be an obligation on linked sites to enforce the self exclusion request across their various brands. As others have said this should be straightforward. Unfortunately the complexity of the various firms, acquisitions, skins using the same B2B (Business to Business ie Microgaming, Playtech) operator and more make this less easy in practice - especially for the B2C (Business to Consumer - essentially the brand you deal with).

    Ideally linked sites would block accounts being opened by the self excluded but as some fail this opens up an opportunity for scammers to self exclude at one then deposit at another in the hope of freerolling the site (withdrawing if they win, demanding compensation if they lose). Now that weakness is partly their incompetence but rewarding scammers is rarely a good idea.

    There is progress being made on self exclusion for UK licenced sites. By 2017 there will be a centralised self exclusion register for all UK licenced sites. Exclude from one and you should be excluded from all. With that in place a tougher stance on UK licenced sites accepting the self excluded will become practicable, it will also be practicable for those who want to self exclude to remove the temptation of all sites legally operating in the UK.

    It is not yet clear if this UK system will be open to non-UK residents to use. It's complicated by the costs involved of maintaining the database, how the self excluded are identified (the UK has some options not all places have re online government identification) and the potential volume of enquiries to the central service - there are also data security issues galore with the current proposal being that large operators would have their own unencrypted copy of the database and smaller operators using a centralised service. Then there are the costs - about £1.5m to set it up and a £1m a year to operate, which seems a bit steep to me but that's what is in the consultation.

    Anyway the centralised system will help with this issue.

    Now - the UKGC attitude to this is not as some think. It is not as consumer favouring as some seem to think. They actually consulted on a recommendation that those self excluding should be punished by losing losing deposits and any wins if they self exclude and go on to gamble. The theory is this would be a deterrence. In the US and parts of Canada this is the norm in casinos, indeed some SE schemes in the US involve criminalising the self excluded who lapse as a "deterrent". In the UK London Clubs International (LCI) - a subsidiary of Harrah's has a self exclusion policy that not only lets them refuse to let people sign up to it at their discretion but also allows them to seize any money paid to their casino, the moment you change cash for chips they are effectively their's if you have self excluded. The contract even allows them to pursue you for any monies they pay out to you in error or because you got someone else to cash the chips through the courts. They have a UKGC licence and their policy is left in place entirely unimpeded.

    Fortunately in the consultation the UKGC did not ask a specific question about their plan to allow operators to seize self excluded players deposits and so they could not proceed with the plan (yet).

    It will be far harder post the centralised database for the UKGC or operators to justify seizing deposits as that should only happen if the operator fails in it's duty. With the new system shifting to a position of all bets are void, deposits refunded makes much more sense than the punitive approach at least some in the UKGC backed before the new centralised system was gaining real momentum.

    In this case I expect it was an error by the site, the player self excluding cannot expect a refund of their deposit but similarly they should expect that winnings would have been paid despite the error of the player depositing at an associated site and the graver error of the site accepting their deposit.

    I hope this helps a bit but it sure ain't simple or easy.
     
    1 person likes this.
  28. Sep 5, 2015
  29. spintee

    spintee Meister Member webby mm2

    Occupation:
    gambler :)
    Location:
    Northants
    Thats the trouble, If and when casino's are ordered to pay back they are going to be in alot of shit, A right chaos,

    Theres going to be 10's of thousand's of people thats deposit across sister sites, & lost money, I bet there is many still depositing now not knowing about all this S.E business,

    The casino's only have them selfs to blame, I was reading on another complaints site about one person was denied winnings due to a break from another casino, The other casino in question actually contributed to the site and stated the player had indeed took a break but could open he's account any time and was not S.E,

    So what the hell is going on?
     
  30. Sep 5, 2015
  31. Casino2014man

    Casino2014man Non-Gambler

    Occupation:
    Noneya
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Something else I should add to this - I am 90% sure I would have used the same debit card to deposit as I was using on Mr Smith, as well as all my other details being the same. Surely this would flag instantly..
     
  32. Sep 5, 2015
  33. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    It's actually there if you read it - the UKGC clearly mentions BOTH 'Licensee' and 'operator'. So under a shared licence the edict would apply as well as just for an individual operator (casino) under that licence.

    Self Exclusion - Deposits - Views?: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.jpg,Sep 5, 2015
     
  34. Sep 5, 2015
  35. Richas

    Richas Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Project Manager
    Location:
    UK
    I think this is the non remote rule - the terms for remote operators are a bit tougher - not the underlined "reasonable" for example but I'd have to go back and check the whole doc to get the comparator - the reasonable is to deal with people betting in person with cash not using an online account.
     
  36. Sep 5, 2015
  37. cncas2123

    cncas2123 Senior Member MM

    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    Belfast
    Isnt the reason that the EveryMatrix sites dont payout if someone self excludes and then plays at another site because of the shared UK license? If you cant win, you should have all your deposits returned IMO.
     
  38. Sep 5, 2015
  39. Casino2014man

    Casino2014man Non-Gambler

    Occupation:
    Noneya
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Thats the way I see it...

    If I had won, I would have sent the same ID docs I sent at MR Smith, they would have probably frozen me out and cancelled my winnings, so I am not sure how they could justify keeping the deposits like they are at present as it was not an equal playing field.

    No response to my complaint/PM as yet. I will see what they say.
     

Share This Page