Slots Magic - help please

[tinaj]

Krystal

I am surprised at your post - I am certainly not seeking to 'inflame' the situation. I think it's clear I have only been polite in all my dealings and communications both here and with jackpot party/slots magic. I came here for advice and support and that's all.

I didn't post your other reply because I actually thought it was quite rude and I didn't think it served any purpose to post and complain about it. In it you told me off saying I should have emailed your support before posting here. I had already done that and sent them the full details and can prove I did before posting here. This was before you became involved here. I am certainly not selectively using replies and there isn't any more to this case than I have explained - it comes down to the question of a permanent exclusion due to gambling issues not being applied.

I do accept you don't want private emails shared - however I felt the content quite general and not if a particularly sensitive nature. The manager still doesn't address the issues. I have replied to him to ask him to do so and the casino still have not provided copies of past chats and emails I have asked for. I will file a PAB now and was intending to do so this evening on the good advice I had read. I will not share any other communications publically. Please can you send me copies of my past transcripts and communications for JP and slots magic Krystal as presumably there is no reason to withhold these?

Thanks

 

[The Blue Anchor]

this is a tricky one given it was a migration from another site.

It seems the casino asked questions, then had a cooling off period - then asked more questions, it's hard to say they didn't take some precautions.

I don't think the casino has to refund deposits in this case, unless they encouraged the op to re-open the a/c.

 

[tinaj]

I had an email with full marketing when slots magic opened while permanently self excluded at jackpot party encouraging me to join which is how I was first aware of the new site. That is absolutely true. They did tell me when I went on chat after it is was an error and I actually wasn't allowed to join.

this is a tricky one given it was a migration from another site.

It seems the casino asked questions, then had a cooling off period - then asked more questions, it's hard to say they didn't take some precautions.

I don't think the casino has to refund deposits in this case, unless they encouraged the op to re-open the a/c.

 

[Finn]

Slots Magic doesn't use Jackpot Party's licenses, they aren't even in the same jurisdictions, Jackpot Party operated under Alderney jurisdiction, whereas Slots Magic operates under Malta jurisdiction and later in addition to that UK jurisdiction.

So in this way, this is not directly comparable to those EM cases, because in those cases, players were self-excluded under that same EM license, but were able to open new accounts at different EM websites operating under same license.

But even if they didn't buy their Alderney license or chose to not to continue to use it, buying of player databases from Jackpot Party should have given them enough direct information of players' gambling problems.

 

[tinaj]

I have submitted a PAB so will not post here again whilst it is in progress. Thanks.

 

[Jasminebed]

Tinaj, I have asked a moderator to move you to the Quit Gambling section of the forum. This will place limitations on your use of the site, including not seeing casino banners and winning screenshots, and other temptations.

I am going to ask you some things, and if you wish to answer me by PM, but mostly I want you to look in your heart of hearts, and find the truth of the matter.

Did you truly believe in your heart of heart that if you won you would not be paid? Did that not even matter, as you knew you would blow it all until there was nothing left so it wouldn't matter if they paid or not?

Did you believe because you followed the "correct procedure" that you would be paid? That some miracle (or randomness, lady luck, or I am due for a win) that this time if you could just win enough money it would solve all those problems in your life.

Or were you using your drug of gambling because MONEY REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GAMBLING ADDICTION. Money is merely the tool to purchase our addiction.

Gambling has caused issues in my life in the past, this is well known here, and I learned a lot that allows me to be a much more controlled gambler, and I use harm reduction strategies to keep me safe from myself. I too have had issues with depression in the past, and my last "slip" from my more controlled life (for quite a few years, prior to online gambling) was following the death of my boyfriend. In addition to grief, I was dealing with a sudden and drastic change in my ability to pay my bills, the time of year I am at my lowest due to Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD).

I still identify myself as an "at risk" gambler. For the first time in quite a number of years I find myself dealing with depression. I have just begun medication again, which generally works well for me to "nip it in the bud" so to speak. I saw small changes in my gambling creep in. Not so much how much I deposited, or lost, but failures to cashout when I should have because I wanted the escapism that the absorbtion slotting gives me.

I wish you well in both your battles. I have faith you can improve your life.

If you think your gambling is about money, I'd dig a little deeper. Get yourself into some professional care for that area too.

I read something just tonight that struck me, although not about gambling per se . I'll paraphrase to "We cannot expect corporations to have a moral compass, the federal government must regulate it".

The UK licencing I do believe is aiming for that with their Responsible Gambling code.

I am not UK, and not entirely familar with all their procedures, but I do believe that if a casino inadvertently permits a self-excluded gambler they MUST void his wins when it is realized, which is often upon the verification process often first triggered upon withdrawal request.

I am sure some other members can fill me in, but aren't there requirements on identifying problem gamblers? If they consider a simple little quiz a yardstick to decide a gambler that asked for Permanent Self Exclusion and 4 days cooling off period responsible, then I think the UKG should be told that ADDICTS LIE!

If indeed Slots Magic feels that actively soliciting a known problem gambler and following regulations to a T then I think they lack a moral compass.

Slots Magic is a casino, they know how profitable an addict can be. And I bet you dollars to doughnuts that management knows that addicts lie.

Tina, you are a wife and a mother. You need a moral compass more than Slots Magic does. You know right from wrong, but the double whammy of depression and compulsive gambling probably has you doing things you know are not right.

I don't know who you borrowed the money from. I don't know what you told them was the reason.

If it was any kind of conventional lender, then you have the ability to repay it or it would not have been granted to you.

If it was from a friend or family member, I bet you didn't go "Hey mom, I'm bummed out tonight, can I have $3K to go blow on slots?"

I have had very very bad episodes of depression. Life threatening ones. They never stole my moral compass.

But gambling did in my past.. Or rather, I took paths I knew to be wrong to feed my compulsion. I think at times it was so strong I forgot to look at my compass at all!

There have been a lot of suggestions that you "take it on the chin"

If you are successful in your PAB, I think you should begin to get your moral compass back by handing it straight back to whoever you borrowed it from and tell them how you lied about your reason for borrowing it, that you are sorry, and that you are trying to get help. Every bail out we get (even if a loved one knows it was because we slipped up) just delays our recovery.

You better tell your spouse if you haven't already. You need his support, and I hope you get it.

 

[Richas]

As I have a long history of lobbying on self exclusion issues in the UK I got a PM asking me to add to this thread.

Firstly this issue is not going away any time soon. The UKGC has a live proposal to have a central database of the self excluded that all UK licenced sites need to use to prevent the self excluded accessing any UK licenced site. This will certainly apply to UK based players but they are also looking at how that service could be made available to all players using sites with a UK licence. There are a range of issues with this including data protection, verifying user identity and paying for that huge expansion of the service.

This is the briefing note on the proposal which includes how identity will be managed for UK based players

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The new system is likely to lead to an increase in disputes rather than a decrease.

The new system also means that it will be important for players to have a route out of self exclusion if and when circumstances change and a minimum period of exclusion has elapsed. I have argued that an appropriate help organisation should be involved in OKing a return to play rather than any individual site. There are many reasons for this but it is likely to be expensive to administer and would also involve (as today) an obligation on the site to monitor the gambling behaviour of the returnee closely likely linked to establishing reasonable stop losses/deposit limits and more. Today a player can choose to return just by going to another site, in future that will not be an option so a managed return takes on additional importance and sensitivity because it is an active decision to permit (after the mandated time out). Personally I think an organisation like GamCare should make that call, not a site looking to profit from the at risk player.

The UKGC quite rightly would not support a situation where a player could freeroll a site by seeking self exclusion, then gambling then demanding and receiving a refund whilst also expecting to receive any winnings. Such a scam could not be supported by a regulator.

Indeed the UKGC has gone futher and seems sympathetic to operators seizing deposited funds of self excluded players seeking to break their self exclusion. Not only do they let casinos like LCI (Caesars) impose such terms they proposed to make it standard in their last consultation but failed to ask sufficient questions for the consultation to be valid - they forgot to ask for views on it at all having just a general question for that whole section.

Persoanally I am vehemently opposed to seizing deposited funds, IMHO ungambled funds should be returned to the player, a balance below deposit level over the excluded period should IMHO be returned to the player but there should be no refund of monies lost whilst deliberately avoinding a self exclusion. Winnings should not be paid to the player either, the incentive to breech a current self exclusion should be removed as far as possible (note this is different to a returning player post serving a self exclusion).

For sites though - they should not profit via allowing a self excluded player access. Any monies they win should go as additional contributions towards gambling help/research rather than to their bottom line. A winner refused payout due to a self exclusion and higher ID checks for payout should receive their deposit but not their winnings - that should go to charity/help/research.

The operators are going to be asked to pay for the new centralised self exclusion - the estimate is a £2m setup cost and a £1m a year running cost for identity checks etc - which would take place at every logon. This is a significant extra regulatory cost - in 2012-13 the UKGC had £12.8m revenue from licenced operators. The recent big expansion of online licencees is likely to add about £1.5m to that meanwhile remote licencees are about to be asked for another £5m over three years.

Now this is a big hit to operators, one I think is fair though, what would not be fair would be taking all this extra money to deliver improved self exclusion and then leave the operators exposed to scammers or have the self exclusion process be abused by those using it either as genuine problem gamblers seeking help or as a way to freeroll.

I hope this info has been helpful for some.

 

[dunover]

This is frankly unworkable. What if a player falls out with a casino, gets a permanent exclusion and finds he can't play anywhere else because of one site when he never had a gambling issue to start with? Again it leaves the onus on the individual casinos. Most UK-facing sites act responsibly anyway. It could potentially deprive the casino industry of multitudes of responsible players due to one site.
I think if this ever comes about it can be abused by casinos and players.
If there is to be a central database of SE'd players who want permanent exclusion from all online gaming, entry should be at the behest of the individual player via a link from the casinos which they would be made to have in their RG section. This would also satisfy any data protection issues, as the entry onto this database would be made by the player themselves and NOT a third-party.

 

[cncas2123]

This is frankly unworkable. What if a player falls out with a casino, gets a permanent exclusion and finds he can't play anywhere else because of one site when he never had a gambling issue to start with? Again it leaves the onus on the individual casinos. Most UK-facing sites act responsibly anyway. It could potentially deprive the casino industry of multitudes of responsible players due to one site.
I think if this ever comes about it can be abused by casinos and players.
If there is to be a central database of SE'd players who want permanent exclusion from all online gaming, entry should be at the behest of the individual player via a link from the casinos which they would be made to have in their RG section. This would also satisfy any data protection issues, as the entry onto this database would be made by the player themselves and NOT a third-party.

I agree 100% that it must be the player who signs up to the database, and the sites should all provide a prominent link to this. Just look at the EM fiasco with players only finding out the are excluded from a site when they try to make their first withdrawal. If its not done properly it will be choas for the sites as well as the players.

 

[Jasminebed]

I am a big believer in personal responsibility, but I also believe the state has a responsibility to protect it's most vulnerable members.

I have a pretty good but not infallible memory. IRC problem gamblers make up about 2% of gamblers, but about 10% of casino revenue. This is a significant number.I know at one point I contacted a couple of agencies, and estimated numbers due to how data is collected might actually by higher for casino revenues.

I know that where I live in Ontario, the self-exclusion rules are a joke. Recovery may not happen in six months, and there is zero monitoring for those who self exclude and come back. The most popular forms of gambling all contribute to government revenues.

I fully agree with Richas that those who profit the most from problem gamblers should not be those making the decisions about how to handle them.

I don't know what the right answers are, but I am pretty much sure the current answers are not the right ones.

While casinos might be exploited by some scammers playing self-excluded card, self-excluded gamblers can also be targeted by less than scrupulous casinos. Since the house always has an edge, well, I am guessing which one profits the most.

I think I manage my gambling pretty well these days. I don't want a casino to be able to look at my selfie with my ID and decide I should really be spending my money on a better haircut and more recent clothing. That's my call IMO, and for the record, I did get a very nice haircut just recently, but I chose a casino deposit more than one week when I should have had one.

I have a party to host today, so I am outta here.

I am so glad to be part of this community. Casinomeister has been such a big part of me being a more responsible gambler, something that was not always true for me.

 

[Richas]

This is frankly unworkable. What if a player falls out with a casino, gets a permanent exclusion and finds he can't play anywhere else because of one site when he never had a gambling issue to start with? Again it leaves the onus on the individual casinos. Most UK-facing sites act responsibly anyway. It could potentially deprive the casino industry of multitudes of responsible players due to one site.
I think if this ever comes about it can be abused by casinos and players.
If there is to be a central database of SE'd players who want permanent exclusion from all online gaming, entry should be at the behest of the individual player via a link from the casinos which they would be made to have in their RG section. This would also satisfy any data protection issues, as the entry onto this database would be made by the player themselves and NOT a third-party.

Read the briefing - the player has to opt in to multi supplier self exclusion, it is not a banned list driven by opertors.

As for data protection, opt in does help in terms of permissible transfer but there are issues with data to countries without suitable data protection laws and for major operators who under this sceme are being trusted with an unencrypted copy of the whole database.

 

[lockinlove]

I am dismayed to read private correspondence we have with you appearing in open Forum.

We will not discuss this here anymore because we are limited as to what we can disclose about this issue in public.
Whereas you can say what you want in order to inflame the situation and perhaps get forum members to somehow influence the outcome without knowing the full facts

As proof of this you are selectively using some of our replies and not others.

At 13.30 pm today i offered you 2 options in my PM reply to you when you told me you strongly disagreed with our decision , and i quote ..
''Ok well if you strongly disagree you have a number of options, one being to raise a PAB through the Forum or raise a complaint with eCogra''

So as final request from our side we urge you to do either of these 2 things or even both first thing in the morning.

Krystal

So since you guys dont refund losses/deposits when they lose but pay deposits only when someone wins... I assume you pay winnings when this happens? Same situation but the player won.

Cant have your cake and eat it too. So one of the two people are gonna get paid here. If not, you are freerolling players and thats wrong.

BTW Im not sticking up for any of them because I think its idiotic to go and play after you self exclude. However, fair is fair.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/sister-sites-and-refusing-winnings.67456/

 

[Richas]

So since you guys dont refund losses/deposits when they lose but pay deposits only when someone wins... I assume you pay winnings when this happens? Same situation but the player won.

Cant have your cake and eat it too. So one of the two people are gonna get paid here. If not, you are freerolling players and thats wrong.

BTW Im not sticking up for any of them because I think its idiotic to go and play after you self exclude. However, fair is fair.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/sister-sites-and-refusing-winnings.67456/

No the self excluded would be freerolling themselves, or at least only possibly winning to benefit gambling treatment/research.

It is important that sites can't benefit from allowing self excluded players to gamble, it is also important to try and remove any incentive for the self excluded to break their self exclusion. That's balanced - if the site wins the profit goes to charity, if the player wins the profit goes to charity - if the deposit remains it goes back to the player - a push.

 

[tinaj]

Hi

I have not heard from Max/admin since submitting the PAB almost 2 weeks ago. I did read the FAQ and think I've done it correctly. I did email to ask if he could acknowledge if it had been received but haven't heard back. I am not sure how to contact him on here - does anyone know his email or how to pm him? Sorry - am a bit of a novice here.

Many thanks.

 

[maxd]

I have not heard from Max/admin since submitting the PAB almost 2 weeks ago. I did read the FAQ and think I've done it correctly. I did email to ask if he could acknowledge if it had been received but haven't heard back. I am not sure how to contact him on here - does anyone know his email or how to pm him? Sorry - am a bit of a novice here.

I had emailed the OP to say that they needed to go to eCOGRA per the casino's Terms, so effectively the case was transferred out of our hands.