self-exclusion mistake?

[tara_grill]

I think I've made a mistake out of complete ignorance of self-exclusion.
I usually stick to about 2-3 casinos that I enjoy playing at due to good loyalty programs, decent bonuses with reasonable wagering requirements, etc.
Once in awhile I'll try a new one and if I'm not a fan I'll close the account and be done with it.
I've done that recently with Casino Calzone. I did a couple of small buy ins, wasn't really too keen on the site as it was similar to one that I was already quite happy with (RIzk). I didn't see any options available to close my account and couldn't be bothered to chat with support, so I thought I'd just self-exclude myself from the site forever since I wasn't planning on using it ever again. I did the same with Casumo not too long ago... I love the site but I found the reel races to be a little too tempting and was unhappy with the returns. Now, what I didn't realise at the time is that self-excluding from a particular site would impact my ability to play on others.

After doing some reading I see that Calzone is owned by the same company as Rizk (my favourite casino). I'm assuming since I self-excluded from one I can't use their other sites? I can't login to my Rizk account now, which is disappointing as I had wheels and free spins stored on there which will now expire.

How do I go about rectifying this? I didn't intend to self-exclude due to gambling problems... I only wanted to disable an account I didn't intend to use again because I didn't like the site after trying it.

I'm going to try and contact customer support, but I'm not sure if I can without being able to login.

 

[Jono777]

Others will chime in but I'm sure with self exclusion you set a time period, be it weeks, months, years or forever.

Not once have I read of the SE being lifted before the time period set by the player themselves (sure the casinos stick to it to avoid HEAVY fines)

There is bound to be some sort of loophole, I imagine approaching senior management in writing informing them of the situation may start the ball rolling, again other members will provide more info hopefully.

Another idea will be to private message the Rizk rep, see if they can help ( @Sebastian - Rizk )

 

[Mark_32Red (retired acct)]

Hey Tara,

We’ve had this on many occasions, people not understanding SE and it’s impact. I don’t think any casino worth it’s salt (inc Rizk) will ever reopen an SE account as it would leave us open to allowing a player with gambling issues to make up an excuse to override their decision.

If what you say is true and you don’t have a gambling problem, I guess it’s time for a new casino for you! Check the accredited section.

Mark

 

[Slottery]

Can at least take quite a lot work and interaction with mails where you keep stating you don't have gambling problem etc.... Most easy and safe way (and many times also right way) not to remove self-exclusions. Removing it right away without any checks or cool offs would give you strong case after few month to claim all your deposits back because it was removed even you excluded yourself (not saying you would do that, but these demands from self-exclusion failures are something casinos receive quite regular basis and many have decided not to accept players back for example after their Gamstpo exclusion is expired).

MTS if i remember right from some threads here, is also quite strict with their compliance, so might be hard to do. Removing these are always causing extra risks to casinos to follow your behavior more closely as you have been self-excluded and one thing what player with gambling problem can do is to state not having problem and it was mistake etc... but opening your account then give all responsibility to casino, so much easier for them is advise that they can't do it.

Also your chance to get it done depends under which regulator you are, for MGA it's actually very easy (1-7 days depends if it's indefinite period or definite you chose) for that point of view but still leave casino responsibility that when they accept you back, they know that you don't have gambling problem.

Would just start to look new casino where to play and keep in mind from now on to use self-exclusion only when needed for gambling problem or some other reason that you are sure not willing never anymore play online in place where doing it (and as you saw now, making it in one place can affect quite many others).

 

[tara_grill]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I completely understand the implications for the casino and know now to only use the exclusion option if I feel like I have a problem. I've done some reading on the forum and have found a lot of people who made the same mistake.

I just wish that I would have known that excluding myself from Calzone would have an impact on my Rizk account. I didn't even know they were connected at the time. I assumed that it would be the easiest way to remove myself from the website without fannying about with chat support. Whoops.

Ah well, like you said @Slottery... there are plenty of other casinos to play at. I just really like Rizk.

 

[Scott1baird]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I completely understand the implications for the casino and know now to only use the exclusion option if I feel like I have a problem. I've done some reading on the forum and have found a lot of people who made the same mistake.

I just wish that I would have known that excluding myself from Calzone would have an impact on my Rizk account. I didn't even know they were connected at the time. I assumed that it would be the easiest way to remove myself from the website without fannying about with chat support. Whoops.

Ah well, like you said @Slottery... there are plenty of other casinos to play at. I just really like Rizk.

That's the rizk you take

 

[Glassheart]

That's the rizk you take

Thank u, next.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I think I've made a mistake out of complete ignorance of self-exclusion.
I usually stick to about 2-3 casinos that I enjoy playing at due to good loyalty programs, decent bonuses with reasonable wagering requirements, etc.
Once in awhile I'll try a new one and if I'm not a fan I'll close the account and be done with it.
I've done that recently with Casino Calzone. I did a couple of small buy ins, wasn't really too keen on the site as it was similar to one that I was already quite happy with (RIzk). I didn't see any options available to close my account and couldn't be bothered to chat with support, so I thought I'd just self-exclude myself from the site forever since I wasn't planning on using it ever again. I did the same with Casumo not too long ago... I love the site but I found the reel races to be a little too tempting and was unhappy with the returns. Now, what I didn't realise at the time is that self-excluding from a particular site would impact my ability to play on others.

After doing some reading I see that Calzone is owned by the same company as Rizk (my favourite casino). I'm assuming since I self-excluded from one I can't use their other sites? I can't login to my Rizk account now, which is disappointing as I had wheels and free spins stored on there which will now expire.

How do I go about rectifying this? I didn't intend to self-exclude due to gambling problems... I only wanted to disable an account I didn't intend to use again because I didn't like the site after trying it.

I'm going to try and contact customer support, but I'm not sure if I can without being able to login.

Rizk and Calzone don't have the same owners but they operate on the same platform under the same licence (MT SecureTrade Ltd.)

Rizk is directly owned by GiG via its subsidiary Zecure Gaming Ltd. and Calzone is a white label casino that is owned by some Swedish people.

Because they operate under the same licence, a SE will be applied across all brands if you are in the UK. Only those playing under the MGA licence can exclude for single brands.

 

[Slottery]

One note for future reference, always worth to click regulators logo bottom of the site and it directs you to see which site are operating under same license. MTS like in this case are really actively selling right to use their platform and license that if you want to start online casino, you almost only need to make your front end which is quite much less work than doing everything yourself, not to mention what amount of different contracts with payment, game providers etc... you need to run your casino. You get all these through GIG or many others who have quite big part of their business in B2B area by providing these services.

MGA don't actually make difference between closing account and self-exclusion, in their terms these both can be removed with 1 or 7 days cool off period, in practice many casinos are not doing these easily, as mentioned in earlier post they have quite a big risk in there if it turns out that you actually have problems with gambling or just decide afterwards to state so, they then need to able to show that there was zero marks of any gambling problem and alone self-exclusion can be seen as one.

With all account closures it's better to do it through support, then reason is clearly documented, they also usually ask reason for closure. Not sure why these connected sites are never listed when closing account, can be one reason that possible problem gambler who deciding that now it's enough could change mind when seeing how many sites it affects, pure guessing but for reason or another haven't at least seen any operator to prompt which all sites under license when making self-exclusion, on other hand it would help player who want to close all possible sites to know that these all are done at same and no need to contact one by one.