pinnit2015

Complaints about licensees 4.16 WhilsttheCommissiondoesnothaveaspecificstatutorydutytoinvestigatecomplaints about licensees, depending on the issues raised the Commission may decide to look into matters relating to the complaint. Further details of the Commission’s approach to complaints can be found in the Commission’s Complaints Policy which is on our website. No spacing on the website; check out their complaints policy if you haven’t. As someone who worked previously in doing risk assessments for organisations I’d be very surprised if their risk assessment procedures didn’t factor in any ‘notifications’ of licence breaches, to determine who to review. Hence why I said no harm in notifying them.

They’ve one month to supply the data. If they have gone over, this report them to the ICO. No harm in cc’ing the UKGC into a final chaser to at least show how much they care for their legal obligations. ‭(not sure if the above helps but I know someone who had the UKGC take an interest in something using the above approach)

Don't know why it's not there if 1 is. Wider note - I'd rather wager on Bonanza than DOA - IMO DOA is awful for wagering. Yes, someone may get the x3 WL's to make a withdrawal but most are gonna bust out very quickly. They must take into consideration potential liability when they pick restricted games, which is fair enough, but I'd be more concerned about restricted games where you can only be 2 quid down after 500 spins, as a bigger threat to my liability, if I were a casino. Someone winning 9k from a 10 quid bonus on 9p's and seeing it voided on the basis of 'the number 2 was implied' has got Ecogra written all over it.

By the sounds of it your energy would be best placed to getting the help to to kick this, rather than pursue for RG issues. I have my own views on this but i don't think it would be beneficial to run through given the information above. Even if you were given the money back it would simply exacerbate the issue - high chance the money would simply go back into a/the casino, making the issue x2 as bad as it is now and the race to the bottom would continue. Make an appointment with Gamblers Anon, Self-Exclude where you can, download Netnanny/Bet Blocker, hand over your financial affairs to someone else, make an appointment with a doctor. You need to de-programme your brain from gambling - all those neural pathways are firing everywhere when you gamble (=loss=self loathing=anxiety=depression) Your brain is convincing itself that getting the money back will make you happy as the debt will be wiped out - it won't, that's just the addiction trying to find a way to stay alive: you need to smother and strangle it, not give it food and water. If your're having those thoughts you really need to see the doctor and any other support groups out there - but you need to put any ideas of claiming money out your head before you do so as that's just keeping the addiction flame flickering. Best of Luck - I truly believe Gambling Addiction is up there with substance abuse in terms of the carnage it can wreck.

Did that include the 450 in deposits?

It's only Netent (and the odd Thunderkick) that turn on the fan on the laptop. Re DOA2 -I don't enjoy it TBH. No doubt it, unlike Bonanza, has the potential with the 30kx, 50kx, and 100kx winners but it's far too HV for my liking. DOA1 has a bonus frequency of around 1/150, reckon this must be 1/250 at least.. Easily rattled through 700 w/o one. DOA1 on 90ps could be suicidal, DOA2 on that stake is a pipe dream.

Should have been a bit better with: Them: Yes, I would like to chat Fiekie: So, would you like my number? The missus is playing a rather laggy Bonanza so I’m free until she busts. Them: But first, I would like very much.. Fiekie: what! Tell me! Them: If.. Fiekie: For the love of God, what! Them: click my promotional Link Fiekie: oh bollocks.

It’s a recurring theme with the newer Netents; they’re gobbling power like no tomorrow. Usually it’s due to the unnecessary videos they seem to have a penchant for. Theres already been at least one 100000x winner, maybe it’s picking you for the next

And there it is....the beloved external link.

You trying to to swipe left and right? Welcome to AG: sponsored by eharmony.com ?

Ah so it is...looks like the UKs a no go ? Trustlys great - it’s like E wallets only cheaper and faster (in my experience so far).

https://www.winner.com/casino/bonus-terms You'll need to wager it x50 the bonus amount awarded: 30x50=1500 50 quid deposit to withdraw lastly, capped at 200 To answer your question you need to wager that 1500 and deposit 50. Don't know why they said you can take out 320 as their terms state the cap, meaning if you play though the 50 and have 50 at the end and want to take it out, the max w/d should really be 250

Yeah it's hardly lies when it's stated. However (talking in general terms), it is pretty miserable to do these offers (like getting an offer of 100 free spins once in cashapillar to find it's 1 line/100) - seasoned players will simply roll their eyes at it and, rather to entice, it will just annoy and make any future deposits less likely (in my case it would) Why not just offer an all line 10c game - it's not as if they're in short supply.

Go Slotty will only be for Finland and Sweden at the start. I don't normally close casino accounts but did with Betat and Slotty. Would have been sadder but truth be told I hadn't really played there properly for a good 18 months.

4x conversion though, such is the generosity of Nektan sites ?

Sorry, my bad - may need to backtrack: Mr Green may own them but RB is on a difference licence. I've been told by the UKGC themselves that this isn't a breach of their licence as SE applies to the licence, not who is the parent company. Next question is why then did they close the account? Probably to cover themselves, just in case - Royal Panda did this when it was bought by Leo Vegas: in the strictest sense the SE doesn't carry over but they must have been cautious and applying any LV SE to their own. Tricky water to tread. Let us know what they do - good chance they'll just pay out but, if not, you'd find that the GC may just say what they said in their response to me. Correspondingly, had you won, there would have been nothing to stop you from being paid (unless they decided to be awkward) as the SE didn't exclude. Oh Lord, edit again, in their terms they say the SE applies to the MRG as a whole - be interested to know if these terms trump the licensing answer i was given by the GC! What a mind field - let us know what they say.

Providing you use the same details there's no reason they shouldn't - may be the case the their systems aren't fully integrated, even if on the same licence, but that shouldn't matter to a player: certainly if you self-excluded and tried opening an account mere minutes after it, you could maybe argue in the casino's favour but months? Hmmm.

Also, if you don't have a gambling problem it's probably best to use the close account option, not the SE one.

It's not that unknown: at the bottom there is; But yes, they should have not allowed you to open an account with RB - though it's phrased in the LCCP as 'reasonable steps'. There's clear precedence in rulings that they should refund you the 450 quid, though the exact wording of the LCCP is Licensees must close any customer accounts of an individual who has entered a selfexclusion agreement and return any funds held in the customer account. It is not sufficient merely to prevent an individual from withdrawing funds from their customer account whilst still accepting wagers from them. UKGC have stopped short of saying 'refund their deposits', though it is inferred from the last sentence. You may have a few exchanges with them over this but, in the main, they seen to refund.

Should also be mentioned that the use of ‘electronic’ verification (identity monitoring in the background) that you can source from a lot of very good suppliers, has the added benefit that, depending on the terms, the possibility of removing the risk of financial penalties should something go amiss. Presumably you’d still be fined as a casino but, should a fault lie with the company you use, you would have civil recourse to peruse them for their contractual. You verify yourself only based on a picture taken on a iPhone, you’re not going to have that. Maybe someone should set up a shared service for account verification. It was mooted that the UKGC could take on this role. You can imagine the response to that by them.

Guessing their appeal to the UKGC over licence revocation didn’t go well. Edit - see slotty is still being offered so probably not ruled on yet. For the record when they were good they were probably one of the best out there

Sad but good. Rumours of their dodgy ownership we’re going round for quite a bit. Also, again unconfirmed, rumours that an employee punched the outgoing owner at a Maltese airport I believe once it was sold. If the Chinese whispers are to be believed I wouldn’t touch any of Maxents properties with a barge pole.

Their official pending period is 48 hours but they pretty much choose themselves whether to adhere to that - you know, cos terms and conditions are only applicable to players and not vice versa ?. They've taken a nosedive since their inception. Also, whilst they're aware of payment processor issues they still continue to use them. What a fantastic approach to putting the customer at the centre of your business - hey guys, yeah we know our PP is ***** but that's how the world turns, you will definitely get your money by the end of the year.

Personally, I'd urge anyone with the desire to play at Slotsmillion to try and curb their wanton desires. It really isn't worth a 7 day wait.

Been a while since i looked at it but IIRC a company receives a D code (for example) = declined, for example or a V code = Validation error (CVV), so they'll know whether i input the wrong CVV code 10 times or simply tried to deposit 100 quid with only a 10 balance, ten times.