Self Exclusion - Major flaws

And surely above all, the reason to do these deep checks is to prevent problem gambling which they are supposed to assisting in preventing and to satisfy their AML/CDD checks.

Isn't that preventing problem gambling that these incidents spoken here have been found at some point? Maybe one day it is common practice to perform CDD/AML verifications upon registration but probably not in very near future.

How stong or weak these verifications should be and when completed probably there are many opinions as there are users. Here in this forum we have good amount of topics about failed verifications which haven't been too strong to prevent people from depositing and quite many topics about too extended KYC/SOW verifications, which seems to prove that these can be both at the same time.
 
Isn't that preventing problem gambling that these incidents spoken here have been found at some point? Maybe one day it is common practice to perform CDD/AML verifications upon registration but probably not in very near future.

How stong or weak these verifications should be and when completed probably there are many opinions as there are users. Here in this forum we have good amount of topics about failed verifications which haven't been too strong to prevent people from depositing and quite many topics about too extended KYC/SOW verifications, which seems to prove that these can be both at the same time.

If this occurred post May rule change then the rules are clear. The operator has to verify age first to allow a deposit and then do identity/AML to allow them to gamble at all in the UK. The vast vast majority of sites match bits of info, I.e name and address, email address, DOB and age to their exclusion register and Gamstop on sign up. If it doesn't immediately match the register then they can still catch that at verification stage, again before gambling a penny.

There are 3 operators who do not work like this and one who completely ignores exclusions and the new rules. They only match name and address electronically and DOB doesn't matter...although the LCCP is clear on this. I will give you a hint, a guy called Bill likes to go up some.....
 
If this occurred post May rule change then the rules are clear. The operator has to verify age first to allow a deposit and then do identity/AML to allow them to gamble at all in the UK. The vast vast majority of sites match bits of info, I.e name and address, email address, DOB and age to their exclusion register and Gamstop on sign up. If it doesn't immediately match the register then they can still catch that at verification stage, again before gambling a penny.

There are 3 operators who do not work like this and one who completely ignores exclusions and the new rules. They only match name and address electronically and DOB doesn't matter...although the LCCP is clear on this. I will give you a hint, a guy called Bill likes to go up some.....

The worst thing about this 3 is they will also suddenly 'discover' an exclusion if you dare to win and revoke winnings(sometimes return deposits if they are feeling generous) Yet if you lose they wont return anything.

Jesus, I mean Mustardbet and tiny one man band type operators can find an exclusion. There is no need for 2 of the biggest operators(the third is smallish) to not be able to have this kind of system in place. EVERYONE else seems to manage just fine, especially since May rule change.
 
If this occurred post May rule change then the rules are clear. The operator has to verify age first to allow a deposit and then do identity/AML to allow them to gamble at all in the UK. The vast vast majority of sites match bits of info, I.e name and address, email address, DOB and age to their exclusion register and Gamstop on sign up. If it doesn't immediately match the register then they can still catch that at verification stage, again before gambling a penny.

There are 3 operators who do not work like this and one who completely ignores exclusions and the new rules. They only match name and address electronically and DOB doesn't matter...although the LCCP is clear on this. I will give you a hint, a guy called Bill likes to go up some.....

Can it be that using second first name is matching when verifying identity but it's not giving match to self-exclusion database where only other first name is registered?
 
Can it be that using second first name is matching when verifying identity but it's not giving match to self-exclusion database where only other first name is registered?

Regardless mate, how do Videoslots, Ladbrokes, Casumo, L&L, Bet Victor, LV Bet, Leo Vegas(now) and all other operators apart from 3 in the UK which I tested rigorously...find these exclusions on sign up or at least at verification...but 2 massive operators cannot! It's absolutely pathetic to be frank with you. This in spite of previous exclusions, Gamstop etc in play!!
 
Regardless mate, how do Videoslots, Ladbrokes, Casumo, L&L, Bet Victor, LV Bet, Leo Vegas(now) and all other operators apart from 3 in the UK which I tested rigorously...find these exclusions on sign up or at least at verification...but 2 massive operators cannot! It's absolutely pathetic to be frank with you. This in spite of previous exclusions, Gamstop etc in play!!

I beg to differ with videoslots mate. I passed their verification despite being on GamStop AND already self excluded directly with them.

Wayne advised that they don’t do documentation verification, I replied ugh you do as I have emails back from support to say they have been approved so I told him to go back and see who is giving him false info.

Again people can say I supplied fudged info, not the case, if I did then they wouldn’t have verified my account.

They also verified bank statements that did not contain my middle name yet my VS account did, not questioned once.
 
Regardless mate, how do Videoslots, Ladbrokes, Casumo, L&L, Bet Victor, LV Bet, Leo Vegas(now) and all other operators apart from 3 in the UK which I tested rigorously...find these exclusions on sign up or at least at verification...but 2 massive operators cannot! It's absolutely pathetic to be frank with you. This in spite of previous exclusions, Gamstop etc in play!!

Don't know, that's why i'm trying to ask and understand why these keep happening all the time as it seems to be big majority of operators who are not able to find these GS registered users when some details are not matching.
 
Don't know, that's why i'm trying to ask and understand why these keep happening all the time as it seems to be big majority of operators who are not able to find these GS registered users when some details are not matching.

Possibilities that they do but as details are not matching they can throw the onus back on to the player for not keeping details up to date blah blah, therefore clearing their hands of all liability by quoting T&Cs etc etc
 
Possibilities that they do but as details are not matching they can throw the onus back on to the player for not keeping details up to date blah blah, therefore clearing their hands of all liability by quoting T&Cs etc etc

That migh be one part of these issues as these checks are completed against many databases where these simple yes/no replies are coming and possibly can be letting through registrations which in manually checks will human eye can detect but these checks where one question asked from other and one from other by computer system possibly don't catch them. These systems which are only checking if that one detail is true or false don't have human brain to put these different pieces of information together (when they don't have that stored information but only reply to question asked).

Like now we had two different experiences about same operator who did and another occasion didn't recognize self-exclusion which suggest that there could be many different possible scenarios during these checks when done electronically and pretty similar scenarios might give different result which was or not detected.
 
That migh be one part of these issues as these checks are completed against many databases where these simple yes/no replies are coming and possibly can be letting through registrations which in manually checks will human eye can detect but these checks where one question asked from other and one from other by computer system possibly don't catch them. These systems which are only checking if that one detail is true or false don't have human brain to put these different pieces of information together (when they don't have that stored information but only reply to question asked).

Like now we had two different experiences about same operator who did and another occasion didn't recognize self-exclusion which suggest that there could be many different possible scenarios during these checks when done electronically and pretty similar scenarios might give different result which was or not detected.

Who knows mate but things do not work the way they are.

I’m sure some of us sound like a bad loser/disgruntled problem gambler but a pub would be fined hugely if they continued to supply alcohol to someone that had consumed too much (UK this is) yet in this world of online gambling it’s mostly the addict that is demonised unless a casino really goes out of their way to be naughty like this week with rogue affiliates.
 
Maybe we do, but I made this thread to discuss the flaws of self exclusion and I think it’s more than doing that.

To a select few it matters, to most it’s an inconvenience to scroll through or another yawn moment of here’s another sore loser that can’t control his/her habit
 
Who knows mate but things do not work the way they are.

I’m sure some of us sound like a bad loser/disgruntled problem gambler but a pub would be fined hugely if they continued to supply alcohol to someone that had consumed too much (UK this is) yet in this world of online gambling it’s mostly the addict that is demonised unless a casino really goes out of their way to be naughty like this week with rogue affiliates.

That's pretty much what i assume most do agree that problem gamblers shouldn't be able to register and these checks need to be done and more accurate what these can be, better.

I still somehow want to believe that quite many operators who have failed to recognize problem gambler, haven't done that with purpose and these checks completed automated checks have been passed even system have tried to recognize problem gambler. One thing is that operators have to pass audits to get their license and then regulator or 3rd party behalf of regulator is completing these audits to operators where these processes need to be documented quite detailed and pass these audits. Failing in audit is hurting operator quite a lot as their license can be revoked, they can be penalised with quite big fines when failures are found and in very minimum they are addressed to fix flaws in their system within very short time.

Quite many audits are completed annually and amount of major flaws found by in these seems not really correlating with amount of failures reported by players (huge majority of players been able to play and found self-excluded at later stage are not sharing these experiences anywhere in internet) and manipulating audits to show outcome which pass to it but is still designed not to recognize problem gamblers with purpose sounds very high shot for operator to try exercise, risk and reward in money can't be that high to spend so much resources trying to create fake system which pass checks but still allow problem gamblers to play.

Then when we see that we have different experiences from same operators, i just find it hard to believe that all casinos are only trying to circumvent their checks which are in place and completed by regulators. Some might not give a shit and be short time happy but can it be said that all or majority of casinos don't even try to follow regulations, if yes, should that regulator do bit more than now if that's what is happening. We mostly have individual failures in processes which might not happen all the time but when certain scenario XYZDOG happen it fails. In perfect world it didn't happen but it does and still i don't believe that all casinos only interest is allow many problem gamblers as possible. If getting to numbers risk vs reward, there just is not enough GS registered or self-excuded players to generate very major source of income to casinos.

For one reason is that these flaws get spotted quite early at the time of first withdrawal or reaching some threshold that more specific checks are done and average value of this segment is not really that huge when you in many cases end up to solve these complaints and put all pieces of information together by people you need to pay salaries. That's pretty much why i find statement that casinos only trying to financially benefit from problem gamblers not to have very strong ground before somebody will explain some bit more detailed numbers about that strategy and it's benefits and i will stand corrected.
 
That's pretty much what i assume most do agree that problem gamblers shouldn't be able to register and these checks need to be done and more accurate what these can be, better.

I still somehow want to believe that quite many operators who have failed to recognize problem gambler, haven't done that with purpose and these checks completed automated checks have been passed even system have tried to recognize problem gambler. One thing is that operators have to pass audits to get their license and then regulator or 3rd party behalf of regulator is completing these audits to operators where these processes need to be documented quite detailed and pass these audits. Failing in audit is hurting operator quite a lot as their license can be revoked, they can be penalised with quite big fines when failures are found and in very minimum they are addressed to fix flaws in their system within very short time.

Quite many audits are completed annually and amount of major flaws found by in these seems not really correlating with amount of failures reported by players (huge majority of players been able to play and found self-excluded at later stage are not sharing these experiences anywhere in internet) and manipulating audits to show outcome which pass to it but is still designed not to recognize problem gamblers with purpose sounds very high shot for operator to try exercise, risk and reward in money can't be that high to spend so much resources trying to create fake system which pass checks but still allow problem gamblers to play.

Then when we see that we have different experiences from same operators, i just find it hard to believe that all casinos are only trying to circumvent their checks which are in place and completed by regulators. Some might not give a shit and be short time happy but can it be said that all or majority of casinos don't even try to follow regulations, if yes, should that regulator do bit more than now if that's what is happening. We mostly have individual failures in processes which might not happen all the time but when certain scenario XYZDOG happen it fails. In perfect world it didn't happen but it does and still i don't believe that all casinos only interest is allow many problem gamblers as possible. If getting to numbers risk vs reward, there just is not enough GS registered or self-excuded players to generate very major source of income to casinos.

For one reason is that these flaws get spotted quite early at the time of first withdrawal or reaching some threshold that more specific checks are done and average value of this segment is not really that huge when you in many cases end up to solve these complaints and put all pieces of information together by people you need to pay salaries. That's pretty much why i find statement that casinos only trying to financially benefit from problem gamblers not to have very strong ground before somebody will explain some bit more detailed numbers about that strategy and it's benefits and i will stand corrected.

Yeah the sad thing is that these companies can be fined and reprimanded for their naughty activities, but it’s always the problem gambler that will lose out most financially and mentally as we get nothing back from it all. Some of these fines will be peanuts compared to revenue so I’m sure they are built into a companies forecasting as a business cost.
 
Yeah the sad thing is that these companies can be fined and reprimanded for their naughty activities, but it’s always the problem gambler that will lose out most financially and mentally as we get nothing back from it all. Some of these fines will be peanuts compared to revenue so I’m sure they are built into a companies forecasting as a business cost.

I just honestly would be interested to see any kind of numbers to that as a business strategy and how much some operator is trying to with purpose target exact problem gamblers as a group. There are stronger and weaker verification processes but i just can't make these numbers in my head to look that great and strategy succesfull that targeting gambling addicts who are registered already to GS would be that highly beneficial.

If taking GS registered users as segment, count how many players are registered there and how many we would be possible to get deposit to my casino instead of these all other ones which take their part even they wouldn't with purpose try target them, i can't just find that cashflow to be that huge that it would be very significant part of casinos total income instead of some more wanted segments (which most probably would be very rich person who like to spend huge amounts as money but can afford that and keep depositing with you years after years).

I would assume that these worse shitholes do don't care a shit and let these flaws be there even they would have easy fix to implement right away are not counting their incomes in GS registered players. And i will stand corrected once somebody open theoretical numbers and processes which are realistic to do in reality. That's why i find that assumption which cover all industry not to be exactly correct.
 
I just honestly would be interested to see any kind of numbers to that as a business strategy and how much some operator is trying to with purpose target exact problem gamblers as a group. There are stronger and weaker verification processes but i just can't make these numbers in my head to look that great and strategy succesfull that targeting gambling addicts who are registered already to GS would be that highly beneficial.

If taking GS registered users as segment, count how many players are registered there and how many we would be possible to get deposit to my casino instead of these all other ones which take their part even they wouldn't with purpose try target them, i can't just find that cashflow to be that huge that it would be very significant part of casinos total income instead of some more wanted segments (which most probably would be very rich person who like to spend huge amounts as money but can afford that and keep depositing with you years after years).

I would assume that these worse shitholes do don't care a shit and let these flaws be there even they would have easy fix to implement right away are not counting their incomes in GS registered players. And i will stand corrected once somebody open theoretical numbers and processes which are realistic to do in reality. That's why i find that assumption which cover all industry not to be exactly correct.

Sadly us mere peasants will never know the truth unless we are industry insiders and I doubt any casino would employee a known and admitted compulsive gambler.
 
As long as the bookmakers are making the final decision, we’ll only get a blurred picture. Any time they are challenged they simply stop replying, they’ve got your money, IBAS won’t take on individual cases, it’s job done.
 
Yeah the sad thing is that these companies can be fined and reprimanded for their naughty activities, but it’s always the problem gambler that will lose out most financially and mentally as we get nothing back from it all. Some of these fines will be peanuts compared to revenue so I’m sure they are built into a companies forecasting as a business cost.

This could be one of the most ridiculous statements i have ever seen. Company forecasting a fine by the regulator :lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
 
This could be one of the most ridiculous statements i have ever seen. Company forecasting a fine by the regulator :lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:

And you know better? Any company forecasts wastage etc and it’s clear there are casinos out there who are happy to bend the rules etc so why not.

Unless you are the oracle of insider knowledge?
 
Perhaps a rep could confirm if they do a name match?

I'm jumping head first without reading the entire discussion so I apologise in advance if this answer is out of place.

At the moment, no name match needs to occur with certain Payment Providers. However soon (in 2-3 months time), PSD 2 (Payment Services Directive 2) should force all payment providers / processors to link the name given upon deposit with the actual payment details.
 
I must just say this gamstop issue is gathering speed again.if you are going to gamble you will ,let it be in a bookie shop ,amusement arcade,if your hell bent on having a flutter you will,so let's not focus on the net as the more negative views on online gambling gives people (goverments)more power to regulate ,same thing happened with fobts in bookie shops,now you have £2 max bet,3 second rule is coming. Then tax.my honest opinion is ,if you have a problem stay away from streams and anything to do with gambling ,like a recovering alcoholic won't go to the pub everyday or he will never keep his sober ways.that is my opinion as I said GamStop is good to a point but it doesn't solve all issues.
 
I have same issue with KINDREDgroup..i permanently closed unibet account. And on 3 separate occasions, tried to reopen .but they refused. Which is fine. I then self excluded from 32red in feb 2018, for 5 years. However, in December 2019 i was allowed to register and deposit on bingo.com..despite my unibet permanent closure and 32red self exclude? How is this possible? Maybe 32red rep can explain? Live chat on 32red, unibet and bingo.com all say there is no grounds for refund of deposits, although this thread shows...had i won, you wouldn't have paid out. Scandal really.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Click here for Red Cherry Casino

Meister Ratings

Back
Top