pinnit2015

That being said, if you look at some of the privacy notices you'll see that there's quite a lot of data transferred to the providers upon each spin so they may have no memory but they've enough data points to build one

They seem very bureaucratic for a casino that's a fraction of the size of your Ladbrokes etc - i'd expect it more of them. Still active reps across a few forums but you get the impression their hands are tied a lot of the time. Definitely been more of a disconnect with their customers, kinda started the time they ditched the loyalty department etc: probably an internal restructure of some sort. Still a decent casino IMO but far from the forerunner it once was. I'd have more confidence in other casinos resolving issues than them unfortunately.

There's a lot of good things about VS but unfortunately not so good. They're IMO one of the most stubborn casino's about and rarely venture off script - so, for places where if you go onto live chat with that issue, will resolve there and then (or credit the a/c and investigate later which i've seen some do), VS are so dogmatic: i've seen people quote regulations at them, tell them they're breaking them, and all you get is boilerplate responses, taking no regard whatsoever of what's being put to them. Casino X - issue with 20 deposit and playing NLC games; within an hour 20 quid added back in a/c plus 10 goodwill Videoslots - despite looking at the game logs and clearing seeing what happened; emails back and forth over a week Even a few weeks ago - they had data corrupted re KYC data (apparently, or a data loss, who knows). VS? They still let u deposit, but when u go to w/d they said 'we need KYC data' - really poor form. Dunno how they are in a complaints process but i imagine there's very little wiggle room with them Oh, and they ignore decisions of ADR's i've heard/seen of - which is, well, awful. That's all before you get to their default RTP settings - sure they've cornered the market of gamification of slots but, compared to say 2015, a lot of their shine has gone off.

But, despite providers like NLC advertising 147000x wins which are really 75x, it wouldn't be 2000x it would only be about 7x if you take the BB amount

50's far too high - personally i wouldn't cash out less than that anyway but it's not the point, esp if your playing to a 100 cap anyway. Only one i know of in the UK that has the same is Dr Bet - seem a bit iffy tbh The likes of Playsunny etc used to be 30 but they lowered theirs to 20 recently.

A quick glance at the GC's report into them tells it all - albeit a few years ago: no AML Reporting Officer, No Procedures, No Training: pretty much as damning as can be: it's of little surprise to see some of the horror stories. I've seen better publicly funded authorities dealing with this. That's even before you go into the fall down from having the best CS about to now you're lucky if they reply. Unfortunately, i can't see them getting back to where they were - can't think of many online redemption stories in the casino world off the top of my head: when you head south, you normally keep going until you hit the seabed.

That's why player protection is oft a two edged sword - you have a regulator that (albeit is OTT in many instances but, to be fair, have been at the forefront of 'good' things like banning reversals and telling casinos they can't impose 500 quid w/d limits etc) adds greater protections, mean that there will naturally be more attempts/or a market to circumvent - game theory basically. Hence the current RG/Gamstop/playing offshore nightmare Regulators tend to mirror each other unfortunately and some MGA casino's have been getting a bit SOW excited over the last 6 months. Hard to pinpoint who are the problem: eg if the OP had won that at Unibet it would be in his a/c in seconds; same for Sky Vegas: both, like Casumo, play under the UKGC licence so.....you can't really say that's the GC's fault but rather Casumo's internal policies. But yeah, depends where you read reviews - i always take them with pinches of salt; Trust Pilot, while sometimes having grains of truth in and amongst the whiney posters ramblings, i'd take with pinches of salt and if you go onto sites who give 888 9/10, you can be assured their reviews are worthless etc. Bearing mind that folk reviewing casinos on some of these places only tell half truths as well; there may be valid reasons why casinos act the way they do.

Congrats on that win; Gonzo MW can throw out some belters. But 500 a day w/d limit is shocking - i'd be worried, if places had such, that they weren't particularly cash fluid: despite their own goals and overzealous approaches re most thing, one of the good things in the UK is that there can't be any w/d limits (other than maybe those imposed per transaction by the payment processor)

I've starting betting more on Sports again but tbh the only way to guarantee anything is to use the exchanges and that isn't for everyone. Golf's just started, and whilst i love it (playing, not betting on it so much), Adam Scott on 55-1 is worth a 20 dipper

Hard to know if he was a SEO bot, certainly had an affiliate link in his avatar: English name, but obviously not, diff IP locations and seemed to go across a few forums copy and pasting nonsense, replying gibberish to threads for whatever reason.

Yeah, i forgot to say that was odd: normally, and quite rightly, it'd just be shut down. In terms of verifying the card is yours - i don't think there is a requirement, certainly under UKGC, to do this - i know Sky etc don't do this, only seems to be MGA. Do wonder why processors don't marry up a/c holder name to the casino a/c; not sure if this is possible to see if transactions get rejected if they don't. Then again, i've just used Mrs Ps a/c for moonpig, so they aren't bothered either

Feel free to write something that makes sense. Bit late for the OP but Casumo are now making this intrusiveness their business model - i'd advise anyone still playing there, particularly the UK, not to bother with them as their current practices are verging on dodgy.

I don't think they know either It's another Dave type account; posts that are kinda, but not really, linked to the original title Odd, very odd.

Is Dave Morrison back?

Mind boggles as to why people do this - personally, think you'll be lucky to see a cent from this. Especially at 18k Euro. Presumably they operate back to deposit method so even if they pay out it goes back to his card? Then you're relying in them passing over any money to you - if they don't want to? Well, tough. Unless you fancy arguing gentleman's agreement etc in a court.

Never got the appeal of Trada that much, even pre Aspire: their platform was awful but suppose it was compensated by the generous goodies and excellent customer support They ceased being a decent casino when they sold their Granny for a payday of going to Aspire - wouldn't be surprised if they disappear in the future. Run 91% games as well - apparently they were going to reduce wagering and look at increasing the RTP's of their games (haha) Hardly a surprise that Conor the rep left pretty soon after. UK wise there are no restrictions on taking cash out (quite right - these casinos who say max 5k a month etc are ripping the P)

The eagle one is from Buffalo Blitz i think (1 or 2: can't remember)

Pretty much depends on the individual agreements between casino and the providers: maybe some that opt for the flat fee a month and that's it: reason being that it takes out the guesswork of revenues for the slot providers so they work out an average fee (maybe based upon previous figures) and that's it. Similarly, the fees may be based on a % based on the number of spins etc put through the slots in question, or it could be a % on the profits/returns for the slot etc. There'll also be the normal 'hosting' fee, which is the same regardless of the amount of play/profits. Probably more to be honest, there could be a mix - you'd need to see a copy of the agreement though to know and these will vary provider to provider (though, for accounting purposes it'd make more sense to run with as many on the same agreement as possible)

Yeah, it's pretty much a matter of context as well with these things: seen judgements from the UKGC etc showing RG failings based on the number of deposits in a short time, there's been failings re lack of customer interactions etc. In this case here, from the chat extract; i don't think it's strong enough to even warrant the argument of 'well they should have done something sooner'. Whilst i don't think emailing in is particularly sufficient, there's nothing that precludes it tbh and coupled with the fact that have RG tools for even a buffer period until the full SE is implemented, doesn't provide much sturdy ground. I've heard guys getting a 'talk to the hand' by the regulator who have had much stronger cases than the one here so pretty much think the chances of anyone ruling in favour of this are close to zero.; in fact, they won't even consider it.

Regardless of ins and outs, merits of self exclusion (and tbh i don't think asking to email in is sufficient for many reasons - it should be one click away), you need to get Bet Blocker or some other software to help moving forward and/or other support. It's only an assist though, you need to want to, otherwise the cycle repeats again and again. In the UK we have gamstop, RG tools and things like BB: i really don't see what else casino's etc can do. Good luck - try not to circle the drain re any addiction issues, it just prolongs the dealing with issues

There is an onus on casino's to identify PG in their licence terms here: that's been the tricky one to implement: if someone comes on angry, complaining about losing to Customer Support, does that indicate an issue? I can see why it would tbh with you and why you hear some players moan that Mr Green etc closed their account after they went onto complain that the slots were rigged etc. Over zealous? Perhaps. Understandable - aye. Any casino using email etc for permanent closings etc/RG issues is running a risk: emails gets lost, don't get sent etc. You're just laying yourself open to criticism which, lets face it, regulators will easily pounce on.

I've been playing it as well - obvs the 96% one like you and it's not as bad as i thought initially; the Garga's do seem capped at 50-100x a lot of the time. Been quite a good balance builder recently 20-40ps to over 100 quid from 20 deposits etc as the 200x's can come in relatively close together if still in the mood. Originals still more likely to hit you above the 750 more often etc but you'll probably lose more at the same time before you do It's the anti no limit city - lots of going on, mainly disappointment, but certainly played worse slots than it.

I think the point Valdes is making/alluding to as well is that, broadly speaking, where does the role of the casino in monitoring players stop? Do people all need to be watched and monitored closely like 1984 and casino's having a mandate to intervene to protect us from themselves. They are making a lot of money with a potentially addictive product so, agree, there needs to be a duty of some sort on them but the question is to what level: i personally think if they have the tools, are easy to find and operate effectively then that duty should stop there; others (albeit with ulterior motives sometimes) want it to go further. If your situation was you had to send an email and there was nothing else available then i think the claim of any failing would probably hold; not sure abt this situation but tbh i can see a casino getting into trouble for not activating a SE, regardless of the tools on the site No wonder casino's are viewing this area as a minefield. FTR - if i ran a casino, given todays climate, I'd be telling the support staff if anyone comes on live chat and gives the slightest hit of a gambling problem (esp those who mention the word exclude), shut the a/c down and there - probably just to keep myself on the cautious side; which is what some are doing. Even when asking for deposit offers.

To be fair, in todays era the whole 6month SE should be automated without the need to email in anything- IIRC 32 Red got in trouble with the UKGC for having a pretty rubbish practice, though this was excessive, of you contact them, they send you a form to complete and then you return it before the exclusion is live. It's no wonder that some casino's on live chat, even if you make the slightest hint of a gambling problem (or even ask for bonus's) will suspend you there and then. That being said, the casino, if i'm reading properly did have an option to suspend the account via the cashier so that's different to the 32 red example who i think had nothing at the time. So, even though emailing for permanent i think isn't great there was the option to do the 30 day exclusion there and then until that permanent one went through so, while i think the above could be better, it's certainly not the worse. No disrespect to the OP but we're getting to semantics and nit picking with all this: i can't see from what's posted, other than maybe the chat support could have blocked there and then, an material failings tbh.

Banks don't cause problems? - I must have missed their role in the financial crash and subsequent bailouts that came from the public purse There's been some clearing of houses over recent years; splitting of the commercial and investment functions which had led to various conflicts of interest and playing fast and loose. That and their history of mis-selling and the billions liabilities that came with that. Some of the new challenger banks have had mixed success: Metro, Monzo etc. That being said, they've been instrumental in some communities in helping smaller businesses Peer to Peer lending still remains somewhat of a niche market - thought it would have taken on more by now tbh