Your Input Please The ordeal of online gambling, Casumo.

[Matti]

Yep. I very much doubt it has anything to do with protection of the player and everything to do with being able to turn around and say 'look guv, we're responsible' to the relevant authorities.

You can't really blame them for that. The fine they got in the UK was (£5,85 million) for previous failings. If I remember correctly they had to bring in new owners to cope. They probably wants to be well on the safe side for this not to happen again.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

You can't really blame them for that. The fine they got in the UK was (£5,85 million) for previous failings. If I remember correctly they had to bring in new owners to cope. They probably wants to be well on the safe side for this not to happen again.

You can blame them when (as Dunover said) they can clearly see with a cursory glance that 90% of the deposits are recycled casino withdrawals. They can then blame themselves when they drive their customer base away with draconian 'checks' like these.

I would suggest that even your average 1st year college student would possess enough pragmatic thought to decipher what was needed from the data already available to them.

 

[Matti]

You can blame them when (as Dunover said) they can clearly see with a cursory glance that 90% of the deposits are recycled casino withdrawals. They can then blame themselves when they drive their customer base away with draconian 'checks' like these.

I would suggest that even your average 1st year college student would possess enough pragmatic thought to decipher what was needed from the data already available to them.

Well you have your opinion. I will stick with mine.

 

[pinnit2014]

Oddly enough, got something similar from Slotsmillion today who told me they are 'required by legislation' to ask for this and if i didn't supply it would go to their legal team with possible account closure (eh?)

Went back and asked can they point me to where it says they have to do affordability checks for 500 quids worth of deposits in 12 months.

Needless to say they were told to just close the account to save us all the hassle.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

It amazes me how many people stick up for the 'poor old casino' on here. I have a feeling some would still be standing up for them if it was in their Ts and Cs that they had the right to urinate on your granny after opening an account with them.

5 years ago if someone said a casino would be asking to see your payslips, bank statements and income & expenditure for a £50 a week gambling habit, you'd have been laughed out of the forum. Yet we're now meant to just roll over and accept it??

 

[Matti]

It amazes me how many people stick up for the 'poor old casino' on here. I have a feeling some would still be standing up for them if it was in their Ts and Cs that they had the right to urinate on your granny after opening an account with them.

5 years ago if someone said a casino would be asking to see your payslips, bank statements and income & expenditure for a £50 a week gambling habit, you'd have been laughed out of the forum. Yet we're now meant to just roll over and accept it??

Casinos isn't doing this because they want to. They are doing this because they NEED to. Casinos is a business. They don't want to piss of their customers with all this shit if they didn't felt forced to by the regulator.

 

[goatwack]

It's a farce from top to bottom, there's more than enough to be gleaned from the standard documentation required upon KYC to ascertain one's Well Of Richdom, without casinos thinking they can have a field day with someone's mortgage payments or payslips.

It's crap, flawed and Mickey Mouse bollocks that 'proves' diddly squat. Maybe next they can draw up a Life Planner and Expenditure Sheet for each individual customer, whilst telling you what games you're allowed to play within 'your allocated budget'.

Casinos have, and always have had sufficient guards in place to detect AML and spot problem gambling. So yes it is overkill and it wouldn't surprise me if some are doing it to 'cut a few unwanted customers loose' behind this charade

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Casinos isn't doing this because they want to. They are doing this because they NEED to. Casinos is a business. They don't want to piss of their customers with all this shit if they didn't felt forced to by the regulator.

As I understand it, they are not 'forced' by the regulator. They need to demonstrate 'due dilligence' to satisfy their obligations and that is it. Due dilligence involves using a basic risk assessment strategy and using information that they already have to make a decision over whether someone appears to be a high risk.

People who are not a high risk-

1) People who already have limits placed on their accounts of their own volition- they are making use of the RG tools available to them which are provided by the casino.

2) People who are using previous withdrawals to fund their further gambling sessions with little input of fresh funds. This is easily spotted by the casino.

3) People who pop the odd £50 in here and there.

Warning signs-

1) Repeated deposits in small amounts of time

2) Repeated reverse withdrawals

3) Large sums of money being deposited

4) A lot of time being spent in the casino per week

See- it really isn't difficult.

The bottom line is that casinos will only be fined if there was a clear and obvious failing on their behalf. They will not be fined in all scenarios. The clear and obvious failing would be related to any of the warning signs I've listed above. The reason why some casinos are operating a blanket policy rather than a case by case one is for little more reason than to not hurt their bottom line. All down to profit, once again. Case by case = more staff time used monitoring accounts.

The issue is that in the long run, the blanket approach will dent their profits much much more.

 

[pinnit2014]

Casinos isn't doing this because they want to. They are doing this because they NEED to. Casinos is a business. They don't want to piss of their customers with all this shit if they didn't felt forced to by the regulator.

Why then are there a few common culprits?

William Hill don't do it, Sky Vegas don't and many many others who adopt a common sense approach because they can read the regulations properly. Are they operating under a different UKGC licence?

Applying a blanket approach of 'hey we might get fined, so we'll just SOW the life out of everyone, even if they've only deposited 20 quid in 2 years', is not only lazy but probably doesn't sit well on the whole 'proportionality/risk assessment' model. Also isn't great in terms of GDPR and data minimisation principles.

 

[brianmon]

Why then are there a few common culprits?

William Hill don't do it, Sky Vegas don't and many many others who adopt a common sense approach because they can read the regulations properly. Are they operating under a different UKGC licence?

Applying a blanket approach of 'hey we might get fined, so we'll just SOW the life out of everyone, even if they've only deposited 20 quid in 2 years', is not only lazy but probably doesn't sit well on the whole 'proportionality/risk assessment' model. Also isn't great in terms of GDPR and data minimisation principles.

Exactly

And those common culprits are all based in Malta. Where they either misinterpret UKGC rules, or get completely paranoid about them.
Obviously, casinos based elsewhere will also do SOW requests.
But they're more likely to only be done when absolutely necessary

 

[Matti]

Why then are there a few common culprits?

William Hill don't do it, Sky Vegas don't and many many others who adopt a common sense approach because they can read the regulations properly. Are they operating under a different UKGC licence?

Applying a blanket approach of 'hey we might get fined, so we'll just SOW the life out of everyone, even if they've only deposited 20 quid in 2 years', is not only lazy but probably doesn't sit well on the whole 'proportionality/risk assessment' model. Also isn't great in terms of GDPR and data minimisation principles.

Nobody is asking for SOW for 20 quid. In this case we even don't know much dunover has lost. Something however triggered a flag in Casumo system so they want to make sure he can afford it. The UKGC has issued some guidelines on amounts that casinos should take into consideration when setting SR triggers.

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

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Nobody is asking for SOW for 20 quid. In this case we even don't know much dunover has lost. Something however triggered a flag in Casumo system so they want to make sure he can afford it. The UKGC has issued some guidelines on amounts that casinos should take into consideration when setting SR triggers.

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

And what if that 20 quid tips you over a deposit threshold. You've deposited 20 quid a week for 5 years and now the accumulated amount sees this bullshit happen. Do you think that is justified? Or do you think a more common sense approach should be applied?

 

[Matti]

I believe most casinos has this on a 12-month basis so it's the accumulated amount for the last year that possibly would trigger a flag.

I haven't seen any casino doing affordability checks for players depositing 20 a week.

 

[interlog]

Thinking about this on the flip side.

I guess their protecting themselves from the gamblers who have lost it all and then cry that the casino didnt do enough to protect them. This is the Nanny State Effect.

This 100%.

All I will say is.... think of the children

 

[Reelsoffun]

As I understand it, they are not 'forced' by the regulator. They need to demonstrate 'due dilligence' to satisfy their obligations and that is it. Due dilligence involves using a basic risk assessment strategy and using information that they already have to make a decision over whether someone appears to be a high risk.

People who are not a high risk-

1) People who already have limits placed on their accounts of their own volition- they are making use of the RG tools available to them which are provided by the casino.

2) People who are using previous withdrawals to fund their further gambling sessions with little input of fresh funds. This is easily spotted by the casino.

3) People who pop the odd £50 in here and there.

Warning signs-

1) Repeated deposits in small amounts of time

2) Repeated reverse withdrawals

3) Large sums of money being deposited

4) A lot of time being spent in the casino per week

See- it really isn't difficult.

The bottom line is that casinos will only be fined if there was a clear and obvious failing on their behalf. They will not be fined in all scenarios. The clear and obvious failing would be related to any of the warning signs I've listed above. The reason why some casinos are operating a blanket policy rather than a case by case one is for little more reason than to not hurt their bottom line. All down to profit, once again. Case by case = more staff time used monitoring accounts.

The issue is that in the long run, the blanket approach will dent their profits much much more.

I agree with all that except warning signs 1 and 4

1.
As i often have 100 - 200 in the kitty to spend ( sometimes more depending if i won poker etc that day ) but often try my luck first with 20, then re deposit until had a win or done my 100-200

So im a higher risk by doing 20,30, 50, 100 than just banging 200 on to start with? Hmm I suppose i can see that.

Yet if im looking at playing higher stakes from the off eg 60p - £2 i would normally dep 100 or 200

So really it depends what sort of session im after, long and low, short and low or short and high or long and high.

I would say most players here are similar to me in that other factors control what I play on any given day, for me im far more likely to deposit higher if i have had a win elsewhere than if i havent. I generally like to play every day but if I havent got any spare cash one day I skip playing as no one should play if you need it for something else.


4.
I probably spend more time in the casino now as I want a bonus, and have to wait ages for one now when I could get one in 15 seconds ( feature buy on chilli ) This dont mean im high risk, it just means I have to physically play longer because UKGC have forced me too! LOL

I can see why all this is kicking off, but casinos need to see that blanketing customers with over the top requests isnt going to end well for players or casinos!

 

[Peluri]

I believe most casinos has this on a 12-month basis so it's the accumulated amount for the last year that possibly would trigger a flag.

I haven't seen any casino doing affordability checks for players depositing 20 a week.

I got that SoW last week from BetAtCasino.. checked my account; last depo January 14 with 20€ and withdrawal same day 30.2€.. This is all my transactions there for whole Year of 2019.. most def flag triggered! Naturally didn't react at all. If gonna close my account; who even cares. One customer less on their sheets...

 

[colinsunderland]

Nobody is asking for SOW for 20 quid. In this case we even don't know much dunover has lost. Something however triggered a flag in Casumo system so they want to make sure he can afford it. The UKGC has issued some guidelines on amounts that casinos should take into consideration when setting SR triggers.

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

But in this case he has only been through a full and intrusive SOW with Casumo a couple of months ago. Casinos aren't following guidelines, they are making things up as they go along, and it is ALWAYS ones based outside the UK who do this. Maybe if they got a barrister's advice from within the UK they would have a greater understanding of what actually needs to be done, rather than just guessing and pissing customers off.

Regarding no one asking for SOW for £20, I had one from an accredited casino early this year, my deposits in the previous 12 months were under £100, and lifetime deposits in 3 years was under £500. Compare that to Sky Vegas where 12 months deposits were £30k+ and 3 years was over £100k. No SoW from them at all.

 

[Deeplay]

Utterly ridiculous and intrusive on every level. Personally seeing as @dunover is not owed any money if I were him I will close my account with Casumo and never return. I remember being hit with this kind of intrusive shit from Rizk last year. Which actually was one of the main reasons I quit totally for coming up to a year. Took forever to resolve was totally intrusive and did it for me at that point gaming wise.

I hate the direction this industry as a whole is taking. And while I miss the gambling I dont miss all the other crap happening. I would tell casumo to stuff there SOW or what ever it is up the back passage. For sure when I do return to gambling casumo is not on my list.

 

[dunover]

Utterly ridiculous and intrusive on every level. Personally seeing as @dunover is not owed any money if I were him I will close my account with Casumo and never return. I remember being hit with this kind of intrusive shit from Rizk last year. Which actually was one of the main reasons I quit totally for coming up to a year. Took forever to resolve was totally intrusive and did it for me at that point gaming wise.

I hate the direction this industry as a whole is taking. And while I miss the gambling I dont miss all the other crap happening. I would tell casumo to stuff there SOW or what ever it is up the back passage. For sure when I do return to gambling casumo is not on my list.

I think to be fair this is not just Casumo (although having been fined 5.85m they may be a bit more sensitive than other casinos) but all foreign-based operations. As intimated earlier here, the UK-owned domestic bookie sites can do all this behind the scenes via CRA's and searches. What gets me is the fact that much of this request is mutually exclusive with the SoW already done and largely involves me telling them what I don't have.

 

[CertaCas]

Casumo had no problem with me sometimes depositing thousands a day and withdrawing huge amounts for years, then suddenly when I came back after a long time not playing they won't even let me deposit anymore without a SoW check. I'm never going to cooperate with these stupid requests, they are way too intrusive and I don't trust their security, some day all that stuff is going to end up online somewhere and I don't want to take that risk, ever. So any casino that wants to get rid of me can just send me a SoW request now (the counter is at 3 so far).

 

[colinsunderland]

I think to be fair this is not just Casumo (although having been fined 5.85m they may be a bit more sensitive than other casinos) but all foreign-based operations. As intimated earlier here, the UK-owned domestic bookie sites can do all this behind the scenes via CRA's and searches. What gets me is the fact that much of this request is mutually exclusive with the SoW already done and largely involves me telling them what I don't have.

I think it is just Casumo tbh, how many other casinos have you had the same level of scrutiny from? I've seen loads of people complaining about the same thing, and by far the most intrusive have been Casumo.
FWIW the UK bookies do do SOW, and have been long before the recent 'changes', but it is almost always for AML rather than affordability, mainly because, as you say, they can do limited affordability checks by way of credit checks.

 

[nutnut]

Just take your business elsewhere. Simple as that as hundred other casinos exist.

 

[L&L-Jan]

Prior before entering SOW thresholds the RG team should have been profiling the customer and by interaction a lot of information can be gathered. When meeting SOW thresholds more information is provided and with that information the casino can do an affordability check pretty accurately, and apply limits if required - in order to protect the customer.

What is complicated for casinos though is that when e.g. a bank statement is provided during the SOW process and on the bankstatement it shows transactions to multiple casinos, in that case additional documents may be requested to make a better judgement of the nett affordability.

We've had our 2nd assesment this year with the UKGC past wednesday and it was only focussing on RG and AML. How we apply the processes was satisfying for the UKGC and we do not require the amount of documents as @dunover received per request. However - I do not know the details on his account and the previous documents as provided.

Keep in mind that the law is out there but how to apply it is not described. Therefore operators need to reed the requirements and turn in to a process. Therefore every casino will execute responsible gaming and AML processes in a different way. I can understand that such a thing is frustrating for players.

 

[Matti]

Regarding no one asking for SOW for £20, I had one from an accredited casino early this year, my deposits in the previous 12 months were under £100, and lifetime deposits in 3 years was under £500. Compare that to Sky Vegas where 12 months deposits were £30k+ and 3 years was over £100k. No SoW from them at all.

For that I would also be pissed off!

 

[Jono777]

For that I would also be pissed off!

I would be pissing off - to another casino