pinnit2015

Yeah, it's a new initiative - known as 'persistent debt'.....

All i can say is that i wish they'd banned them in Glasgow's 'Gentlemen Establishment' clubs I'd be rich. Damn those alluring women.

A punchy read https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-gambling-businesses/Compliance/consultation-responses-2020/Changes-to-licence-conditions-and-codes-of-practice-on-the-use-of-credit-cards-for-gambling.aspx

But some, at least, have common sense.

Yeah, and it can cost me just slightly less for buying a car that i really cannot afford, or the 10 holidays i've stuck on it

I did chuckle at this response from the CC consultation. Really? I pay 3 quid to deposit 100 quid and it 'forced' me to go on a Bonanza bonus chasing session as i sought to recover that 3 quid? Who'd have known that the 3 quid fee led me to doing 100 quid spins on Superflip What nonsense

Clarification today actually

They need to be wary of the hand that feeds them - after all, they get a huge chuck of their income from fees etc

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/News/gambling-commission-releases-guidance-to-help-consumers-limit-gambling-related-content-on-twitter Yeah, that's really getting at the issue. They'd be better off whacking the casino's with double digit fines for those who endorse a moron dressed as a cowboy playing DOA

He's searching all the bitstarz games that he thought he'd Free Spins in, little knowing that you've played them all.

It's superficial to say the least - i can transfer my CC limit to my bank account and it's available right way, as is funding certain wallets etc, as it nipping to the ATM, lifting cash and buying a pay safe voucher etc. Either the wallet providers will have to remove it or casinos's will just have to ban those as well. But i doubt the GC even know what a web wallet is, so..... I'll stick with the classical theory of utilitarianism and run with the greatest good for the greatest number, which is non addicts My issue with the CC is that, in the grand scheme of things, it achieves a minimal impact Casino's are reducing RTP - RTP lowering=less play time=more deposits - now, that can't be good for a 'safe' gambling environment; so why don't they up the minimum allowed RTP of 90% to 99.9%

Yeah, thought to be fair it's not just them...more worrying was the attitude of N1 elsewhere, who seemed nonchalant with the whole thing - believing (wrongly) 'well you don't need to watch' - if that was the case there'd be no such thing as false/misleading advertising. Hey, as long as they get the referrals i suppose they don't give a sh@@

Last time i was 'down south' in the Republic I did notice someone who resembled Conor

Just searching your own terms and conditions to make sure that doesn't contravene them..... Yep - Found it....just sits under 'payment method must be in your name, as do FS' Back to eating cat food Olle.

If that's not 750 Bonanza quid spins I dunno what is

The beads of sweat as it dawned on him..... More shame the casinos, like i mentioned, who affiliate with these tossers

No need for a campaign mate - one's enough! BUT....looking at their licensing etc I'd be very surprised if you have any luck with them. Passing it around, or so they say, they're lying, they don't want to pay, they have acted with great deviousness etc - hope i'm wrong, but it doesn't sound like a place who will go back on their current practices.....

Here's a thought - folk go on about the UKGC looking at banning pending/long withdrawals. I don't know any research but.... Whilst that is fine for non problem gamblers - cool, get my money quick, buy my Nintendo Switch without an hour of getting it etc (actually just finished playing MarioKart) I have wondered for a while whether the GC's view is that the opposite of that - If I'm an addict, one of the worst things possibly? that can happen is that i'm paid in nanosecords. That money's going back in somewhere as soon as it hits my PP/VISA etc. Escalates the issue, loses even more grip on the value of money with in's and out's of accounts. Curious to see whether the GC would go 'Hold on, allow folk to lock, but the Pending Period can stay' as it will take the momentum off constant deposits - one they're out with a pending withdrawal that they can't access, no more play. Basically once they withdrew, you couldn't play it back but at the same time it's be a number of days before you got the cash. Just thinking but there is a tad of sense in that. What it won't do - treating the symptom, not the cause etc, is address the issue - which is, that they need professional help. However, back to the previous post, you are basically handicapping 'normal' punters because of the actions of a minority (and they are a minority, despite the Daily Mail's musings)

Thinking about this a minute, and i suppose it could apply to many businesses etc, but aside from a term in the t's and c's stating 'the payment method must be in your name etc', what's the controls to prevent erroneous payment methods being used to deposit cash into the accounts? You can argue that the control should be greater for online casinos because, you know, gamblers/possibly problem gamblers, will go to any length to get their fix. And being told that casinos are primed for money laundering (I've my doubts about the players being the money launderers....some of the casino owners, not so much ) Wonder if i deposit using Mrs P's account, don't win...finally win....go to withdraw...they say no....other than me get a CIFAS marker possibly, will they refund them the cash without having to go down the whole fraud route? Dunno how the practice works.

Change that to withdrawing and it's a different story Moral of the story - it's ok to deposit dirty/stolen cash as long as you're not lucky enough to win and withdraw it.

Yeah and watch him brick it when it becomes apparent he’s in demo play. Oopsie daisy

If gambling was banned it'd be like the UKGC voting for their own extinction The mainstream media is gambling daft at the moment - I don't know why - political pressure? These 'family' pressure groups that have been set up? - on this note, and i don't mean to sound callous, but there is blatant exploitation of peoples grief (Hiya, BBC) when it comes to these 3/4 stories you'll read about. They are tragic but they are by no means a precursor to the banning of this horrible hobby. Does/did gambling/casinos need cleaned up? Of course - there are some awful practices still on the go IMO - like N1 casino sponsoring that moron Roshstein and his fake 50 quid spins and all the other (though not all), streamers who IMO, are bottom feeders, Then there's casinos affiliating with folk who proactively target problem gamblers etc. The UK, and i have it somewhere, is currently in the middle of somewhat of a mental health crisis and i don't think it's a massive jump to connect the two quite a lot. The rise of mobile gambling, slots in general have all probably contributed to the 'rise' in numbers so to speak. The UK used to be famed for the whole 'stiff upper lip', say nothing and get on with things - by Lord, how we've changed as a cultural nation. When things go wrong or you do something wrong? Point the finger - 'it was him'! - and that's exactly what is happening with gambling - when i was on my early 20's i got myself mixed up in things that i shouldn't have, had quite the fall out but it NEVER once occurred to me to point the finger, assign blame to others for my own shortcomings - i sucked it up and dealt with it. Ban *****, ban booze, ban ***** incase you get an STD, ban lofts incase you fall through them into the living room - oh, danger, ban dogs incase they eat your last hot dog and you cannae eat for a week and die. When Hong Kong was handed back to the Chinese it should have been the UK giving itself to China I have zero problems with doing away with gambling ads, stopping the promotion malarky of those joke streamers/targeting kids etc - same way as i agreed with the ban of smokes on the Telly. But that's pretty much where i stop. As to the responsibility of casinos to identify problem gamblers - 2 minds about this. I think there is a role but it's not been that well put into practice. Heard someone compare casinos, in general, to payday loan companies: an MP. Sweet baby Jesus.

Nope - the second was Bet Victor, the 900 was Unibet IIRC Ach, i didn't really care for asking. If money's intended for you it normally has a way of reaching u

Was never a fan of WHG sites - always found them to be generally error prone and, worst, laggy as. Used to fire you quite the round of bonus's - and then banned you when u took and won on them

Conor seems somewhat of a magician. Ergo the challenge is: - Can he turn my 10 quid deposit into a 1000x Bonanza bonus, or - Will he make my balance disappear before my very eyes? Only joking - we know casino's can't influence games* *Thats what they want us to think.