Videoslots withdrawl denied and Account blocked.

Gaz237

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
May 8, 2014
Location
chelmsford UK
That for me is no grounds what so ever to block a players account and refuse a customers winnings.

So if I go to my cousins for the night, who also has a VS account, log in to my account and play will they reject my winnings too? I bet they will be all to happy to keep any losses :rolleyes:

If the player didn't take any bonus I don't see the problem.

If the player can prove his identity and confirm he isn't the self excluded player what's the issue with using your account at a friends without a bonus? There is no way a player can exploit Videoslots or abuse a bonus if they haven't taken any. On the other hand a casino can exploit this "One IP address" situation and refuse winnings?

Be interesting to see what happens here.

But that's not what happened.

If you had gone to your cousins, who had Self Excluded from VS. Then decided to open an account for yourself at his, it paints a very different picture.

The OP could of gone on chat, to see if there could be any possible issues.
 
Award winning Videoslots is reviewed by Casinomeister

NeverLucky

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
That for me is no grounds what so ever to block a players account and refuse a customers winnings.

So if I go to my cousins for the night, who also has a VS account, log in to my account and play will they reject my winnings too? I bet they will be all to happy to keep any losses :rolleyes:

If the player didn't take any bonus I don't see the problem.

If the player can prove his identity and confirm he isn't the self excluded player what's the issue with using your account at a friends without a bonus? There is no way a player can exploit Videoslots or abuse a bonus if they haven't taken any. On the other hand a casino can exploit this "One IP address" situation and refuse winnings?

Be interesting to see what happens here.
The make-or-break factor here is the Friends SE i think.
I've asked Chat before whether or not i was allowed to play on my Account at a Friends place as said Friend also has an Account at Videoslots. Was told by chat that this would be fine and havent had any problems with it.
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
The make-or-break factor here is the Friends SE i think.
I've asked Chat before whether or not i was allowed to play on my Account at a Friends place as said Friend also has an Account at Videoslots. Was told by chat that this would be fine and havent had any problems with it.

Yep - think so, as same here - we have 2 accounts in our house after we checked with VS if it was OK and they said it was fine
 

Steviedoo

Meister Member
MM
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Location
South
Might be the op is not telling the truth about self exclusion and it being a friend.
We do not have the entire story.
I think videoslots is doing the right thing. They have always been fair on this forum.
 

Chipkin9

I'm not a Senior
Joined
May 23, 2013
Location
Tyrone, Ireland
I’m no Swedish liberal at all, nor a advocate for casinos with vested interest...
but.. they do have terms, and videoslots are very very far from rogue operators..
I agree let’s see how it plays out totally, but as many long time members will testify ‘seen it all before’
That’s not saying the op is a liar or a fraud by Any stretch

read the terms... it’s really not rocket science

No the terms aren't rocket science, but then they need to start banning everyone who plays from an IP address that has been previously used at Videoslots. I've also never stated anything about VS being rogue, I know they aren't, they're the best out there.

But there's such a thing as Dynamic (Changing) IP addressing which gives people an IP address from a set of all available IP addresses. You could end up getting my IP address right now, next week.

Let's say you sign up to a casino and I've already signed up and taken a bonus and then you get flagged by a casino for having already been registered, then will you come back and say the same? "It's not rocket science".

No it's not, but it's a lot more complicated than just thier terms. And I can tell you you are more likely to get my IP address than getting a 1000x win on Bonanza. Really improbable, but possible.
 
Last edited:

Chipkin9

I'm not a Senior
Joined
May 23, 2013
Location
Tyrone, Ireland
But that's not what happened.

If you had gone to your cousins, who had Self Excluded from VS. Then decided to open an account for yourself at his, it paints a very different picture.

The OP could of gone on chat, to see if there could be any possible issues.

It's impossible to prove whether or not the OP was a legitimate player opening the account to play for himself or on behalf of his friend.

He could have been legitimate or he could be backing his buddy and letting him use his details.

It's now a grey area matter involving IP Addresses and account banning.

To keep consistency, the next time I play at my cousins they should ban my account.

I could after all really not be Chipkin9, but my gambling addicted cousin (who is self excluded) using Chipkin9s account to exploit videoslots with no bonus.
 
Last edited:

Gaz237

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
May 8, 2014
Location
chelmsford UK
It's impossible to prove whether or not the OP was a legitimate player opening the account to play for himself or on behalf of his friend.

He could have been legitimate or he could be backing his buddy and letting him use his details.

It's now a grey area matter involving IP Addresses and account banning.

To keep consistency, the next time I play at my cousins they should ban my account.

I could after all really not be chipkin9, but my gambling addicted cousin (who is self excluded) using chipkin9s account to exploit videoslots with no bonus.

Your not really making much sense.

You would be an existing customer, who would of joined and played from a different isp originally.

VS have a duty in regards to responsible gaming. You keep overlooking the SE in place from that isp.
 

Chipkin9

I'm not a Senior
Joined
May 23, 2013
Location
Tyrone, Ireland
Your not really making much sense.

You would be an existing customer, who would of joined and played from a different isp originally.

VS have a duty in regards to responsible gaming. You keep overlooking the SE in place from that isp.

I am making 100% sense Gaz mate.

Let's say I had an account at Videoslots and self excluded. Then next week you attempt to sign up to Videoslots, but you end up getting my IP address that I used to sign up with.

You will now have your account banned based on IP Addressing, you'd be pissed if you won a few k, no?

Of course that isn't the case here. A player used a friends network to sign up and play. These are not grounds for an account closure and confiscation of winnings in my opinion. Especially since he didn't take a bonus and can prove his identity.

If you had a friend who was self excluded somewhere, you are round in his and he suggests you to sign up and play and you do. You are going to be really pissed off about this situation, especially if you didn't know you're friend was self excluded.

This is the problem here.

Is signing up through an already used IP Address (Regardless of self exclusion) an account closure offense or not?

If so, then consistency must be shown and everyone must have thier accounts closed if they use a friends IP.

If not, then pay the man his money if he proves his identity.
 

Gaz237

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
May 8, 2014
Location
chelmsford UK
I am making 100% sense Gaz mate.

Let's say I had an account at Videoslots and self excluded. Then next week you attempt to sign up to Videoslots, but you end up getting my IP address that I used to sign up with.

You will now have your account banned based on IP Addressing, you'd be pissed if you won a few k, no?

Of course that isn't the case here. A player used a friends network to sign up and play. These are not grounds for an account closure and confiscation of winnings in my opinion. Especially since he didn't take a bonus and can prove his identity.

If you had a friend who was self excluded somewhere, you are round in his and he suggests you to sign up and play and you do. You are going to be really pissed off about this situation, especially if you didn't know you're friend was self excluded.

This is the problem here.

Is signing up through an already used IP Address (Regardless of self exclusion) an account closure offense or not?

If so, then consistency must be shown and everyone must have thier accounts closed if they use a friends IP.

If not, then pay the man his money if he proves his identity.

To answer the first bit in bold. The only person he should be entitled to be pissed off at, is his mate, if he never told him. If he did know, yet still signed up, then at best is very naïve. Out of the thousands of casinos, he just happened to choose the same one. C,mon?

The 2nd. The elephant in the room ( which you cant seem to see ) Is the SE.

Your focusing, just on the ISP. That's not the big issue. It's the SE from that ISP and the opening of a new account.

There's plenty of people I know who meet up and play at VS from each others houses/ISP's

Not that it makes any odds, I'd like to know how long between the SE and the opening the new account

I wonder if the OP would of also complained if they lost?. Could just as easy say I SE and they let me open an account on the same ISP, with my mates details. My deposits should be voided and returned.
 
Last edited:

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
Also - was it used on only one occasion on the excluded player's connection? Or was it multiple logins on multiple days?
 

colinsunderland

Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
It could also be that there is more than has been revealed from the player side.
Usually when a respected casino/rep refuses point blank to talk about an account closure there is more than meets the eye. I would be very surprised if the only connection is an IP address.
 

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
As usual with this kind of cases, there is more than has been told.

My gut is telling me that we see a fraudster here or at least a fraudulent attempt.

No casino wants to lose customers, so when one is invoking the term VS did then there must be some corroborating evidence of something fishy.


Every time we had a case of "friend", "cousin", "girlfriend", etc. here it always turned out to be some attempted fraud or someone trying to circumvent SE barriers. I see the same signs with this OP.
 

Harry_BKK

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Location
Balcony
Shouldn’t VS system have spotted that this was a self excluded IP during the account creation part? Correct me if I am wrong.

No, main SE identifiers are name, birth date, address, email address, phone number, credit/debit card numbers.

Many people are on dynamic IPs, so that can't be the single identifier to exclude everyone signing up from the same IP.
 

dpp00

Experienced Member
Joined
May 19, 2012
Location
uk
ya im sorry as usual with these cases when you see the casino point blank saying go for it you can be sure there there pretty confident

with there decision, i think id agree with them here im only saying it because i play from another country even though im UK based,

but due to family matters i find my self in Ireland a few days a week and just asked VS if its ok to play and had no problem for nearly 2 years now,

also my other 3 casinos do the same was simply a matter of asking, i suppose its the same advice thats always given here read t&cs and when in doubt ask,
 

aceking123

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Location
uk
Have to disagree with a few here, if the account is 100% legit different person but not a fraudster then video slots should pay out. Just because he signed up his first account & didn't take the bonus & did it his mates place does not warrant them holding payment. Doesn't matter if mate is self excluded or not.
Just that the account & player is legit. Thats all what matters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mac72

Threatening behaviour - PITA
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Location
n ireland
Have to disagree with a few here, if the account is 100% legit different person but not a fraudster then video slots should pay out. Just because he signed up his first account & didn't take the bonus & did it his mates place does not warrant them holding payment. Does matter if mate is self excluded or not.
Just that the account & player is legit. Thats all what matters.
Completely agree, if he is who he says he is and didn't take a bonus whats the issue? In this world of mobile play and the amount of users most of the casinos have it must be near on impossible to play on an IP address that someone else who's a customer hasn't used. I'd like to see the IP t+c's removed everywhere its akin to borrowing my mates jacket and heading to B+M where he's barred and being shown the door or worse denied winnings :) He would have had no grounds for deposit refund under SE rules and if he did that's an awful can of worms, so anyone having a bad session could pop over to their SE'd mates house and play on and then seek refund?? Doesn't make any sense
 
Last edited:

aceking123

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Location
uk
Maybe so , but again i have not stated any different only if what i had already written is the case, don't always judge a book by its cover , video slots are no angels , neither am i saying the op is, but its a far cry when people go into auto about bad players, i've watched it many many years , not all players have done wrong.
 
Top