pinnit2015

To be honest, i'm more surprised 32red were the good ones as their RG history is patchy - if you ask to Self-Exclude they told you they'd email, you'd complete a form and then return it for it to be actioned. May have changed now but that wasn't that long ago. Not singling these casinos out, all public information, but again this has been the UKGC's view for a number of years.

With the casinos who contacted him once he closed the account, there's probably a few key questions for them to answer. This is an extract of the Casumo decisions - I imagine your case is stronger here (given the limited info caveat), as they actually contacted him, rather than review him for possible issues. Should be noted that the UKGC, to my knowledge, wouldn't instruct a casino to reimburse any monies (Leo Vegas did but that was when they closed accounts with money in them) but it may be, depending on how it goes, that the casino do so: if so, make sure it goes to any debt accrued as part of this...

Well, that's the thing: we have tools such as Gamstop/Bet Blocker etc but that's all they are, tools. Hopefully he decides he wants to quit for good as there will also be some Curacao/Costa Rica clip joint who will accept custom from the UK and negate at least the first tool. I've heard some people signing over control to their financial affairs as well, certainly at the start, that might serve him well. Whatever it is , obviously, it's essentially down to him to succeed: in all our lives we hit that point of 'oops, gone too far' and it kick starts the recovery process; maybe this is his oops moment.

Also, from a Privacy Policy point of view - upon account closure they should stop processing your data ie. your contact details. Might be worthwhile throwing that into the mix as to what they continued to process his personal data (in making contact) when most privacy policies state that this ceases at the point of closure.

The wording sounds familiar to one of the casinos i use. What reason did your son give for closing the account? Lack of bonus's? Bad luck? Asking players to re-open accounts, after they request closure, is a tricky one: in todays era, i envisage the UKGC not being overly impressed. It's one thing to try and get back dormant players, but they may see trying to get someone to re-open a closed account (just showing you that closed never means closed!) as somewhat predatory; particularly, if their accounts points to heavy losses over a short period. Again, it's a balancing act: people are quick to say casinos aren't personal anymore/that they don't care for customer retention etc. My layman's view (and i'm not an expert in this, just a passing interest) is that even if he said it was because of bonus's, but his account showed heavy losses in a short period, there could be the perception that they are a tad predatory in the 're-open' emails. The casino would, quite rightly, say that as he didn't Self Exclude, how were they to know - recent cases by the UKGC have said, and i paraphrase, that this doesn't matter (and this is where the casinos come unstuck - they would argue they aren't mind readers). It will come down to what policies/procedures/risk assessments they have in place - if they have NONE, your son could have said he was closing it as the casino was looking at him funny, and it wouldn't matter. Also, i'm not agreeing with either view on this: just giving a view from reading the recent decisions as to what their mindset is.

Last thing, there are calls for more to be done by some (who may/may not have an agenda) - Greater information exchanges between casinos, essentially tracking betting and deposit patterns to identify players, - Mandatory default deposit limits, raised only upon completion of a credit check/affordability check. I tend to take a lot of views with a pinch of salt: you have political groups connected with the gambling sector (so their view will be it's fine as it is), and there are those on the other side of the spectrum who seem to protect all individuals against any harm, ever.

On a side note, re regulation - https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-7220011/Betting-crackdown-drive-punters-offshore-sites-says-William-Hill-boss.html Obviously WH have a vested interest in this but the points still valid.

This is the key bit in the LCCP. Should be noted that the UKGC recommended (to the government)that that in their view, no further legislation was needed, but a strengthening of the casinos' commitment to this. People wondering why casino's now get a bit funny if you ask for a bonus: below is your answer

Never used and would never use - if you can't be bothered applying/being accepted for a licence from Curacao, you must be a bit of a bottom feeder IMO. ?

I agree that, particularly with regards to the events and tickets (coupled with the account closures), the UKGC will/would find that they will have breached the RG element of their licence. The bolded bit is where it gets kinda messy: someone may earn 25k but quite easily afford to deposit that amount in a casino: it could be that they won 250k in another casino, it could be that they were left 2 million as part of someones estate etc. This is where RG and Source of Funds overlap - it's also an area that casino's, from GDPR purposes, breach the data protection legislation. Like I said, personally, I don't want anymore RG responsibilities threw at the casino's - i think we have enough. What i would say is that the UKGC needs to be a bit more proactive in terms of vetting the casinos' policies. What i mean by that is that all the casinos are operating with various different approaches to this - all it would take is, as part of the licensing, would be for someone there (new/re-applying) to review the casino's RG policies in place (trigger points/actions etc): once they've seen that, and tacitly approved, then casinos will know that if they comply with that, it will be sufficient. There'll be no ambiguity. May sound like i want more micro management but i think that'd be a small price to pay for more invasive legislation. It's the same for t's and c's. We have a default position of people saying 'ah but you agreed to the terms' - so what? Unfair terms and conditions do not trump the Consumers Rights Act - how some casino's terms passed the licensing test, is a mystery to me: you can't waive your rights under that Act by ticking a box agreeing to unfair terms. Sadly these cases are only ever tested in court obviously. As an auditor by trade, i could never be held to account for not detecting a fraud - where i would be open to criticism is if my procedures were not sufficient to detect it - a subtle, but key difference. Same rationale applies for casinos i think. I'll tell you why you'll probably, if it goes all the way up, succeed -if you ask that casino for their risk assessment policy, on how they monitor/review/check, i'd hazard a guess you'd not see anything, because they don't have it. Seen it with Casumo and they're one of the larger casinos. Worth noting that the bolded bit will see them in breach, likely, of not just RG but AML legislation.

I find your words inspirational

To be fair, the U.K., regulation wise is probably the safest places to play for players. There’s the argument that it’s becoming over regulated and, personally, I would air on agreeing with that. Regulation wise we have a national self exclusion scheme, RG controls, RG in the licence, the new 5th May rules. Regulation wise it’s all there. The weaknesses fall down on RG with the UKGC saying they aren’t an ombudsman for it and ADRs not looking at it. Definitely a gap to be filled and Gamstop needs serious improvements as well as some casinos not complying with the 5th May changes. If you compare now to 5 years ago it’s night and day. Yes, there are continued poor performance by casinos but it’s definitely tightened up IMO. The problem that you have, and not directed at your son, is that you are possibly pushing responsibility for people’s actions onto the casinos by the argument of ‘ you should have known them asking for a bonus shows they’re an addict’ That’s a v dangerous path and one that will see hiccups along the way.

Question? Statement? Underline?

Think a good thing to do is to spend your winnings on something - pay off a loan, put to a car, a holiday etc: it means that you can see the fruits of your labour; otherwise all you do is recycle the money, never seeing the benefit. Sounds daft, but if you don't you just see the 4k go to 3 to 2 to 1 etc. Then pooof. Gone. All that, for er, nothing.

It's mental...makes zero sense. At work we're working with some of the telecommunications companies in terms of looking at the possibilities of automation, AI etc and the benefits it can bring (Do you have connections to IBM? - if so, you'll probably know they're paving the way forward with a slot of AI developments and the rest) - so to go from those conversations to that is just mind boggling. Yeah - i 'expired' on the 2nd January-19 accord to my ID, I am currently gambling from beyond the thin veil. Sweet baby Jesus.

Ah, Cyber Security, one of my interest; ISACA, COBIT etc ? I think we all have that moment. Gambling hardens you to the value of money; think nothing of spunking 500 quid in a slot but then recoil in horror when paying 500 quid for a two night stay somewhere etc. Due to various reasons my gambling’s been cut short over the last several weeks. Was going to wait until my risk free Redbet bonus comes tomorrow but guess that’s not for appearing ?

tbh it's never something I'd sign up purely to take - plus, some have pretty low cash out caps as well. I'd rather pick a casino based on other factors. Can't say i see much of them here now. Presumably will be the same if you've a Swedish Licence. But then again, bonus's are becoming so infrequent, I've almost forgotten how to spell the word.

If UK based, all done (to my experience) in the background - throw in Malta based, different story. Presumably, it's because the UK ones have the electronic infrastructure to do a lot of this against the mass of data they can cross check against. Said before, i really do not see how a picture of an easily mocked up letter from the bank is a particularly good 'address check. Same with passports. There's never been examples of forged passports, surely.... Doing it all electronically may cost more for non-uk initially, but surely 1. Enhanced assurances 2. Not as much staff time wasted pouring over those 4 corners 3. not as much money spent holding/protecting the sensitive data, are bigger advantages.

We can criticise the UKGC for potential over-regulation but at least UK punters have things like this. Those withdrawal limits are ridiculous, coupled with the lack of 'locking down the cash, serve only one nefarious purpose.

So...they basically: Don't have any RG controls - player safety is top priority for them, obviously Have an arbitrary payout policy, whereby they pretty much pick and choose when/if to pay players No harm in naming if no reason other than let players know where not to play. If it's a cornflake Curacao licence we'll have the unholy trinity. Probably not much you can do TBH.

Funnily Stakers was one i praised early on but then came the 1. SOW request after <2k of deposits, 2. Withdrawal fees and 3. PNG Games at a fantastic RTP of 91% 1/10 for me, purely cos they pay fast.

Think one of the things is the differences between the UK Bookmaker type ones - Willy Hill, Ladbrokes, Coral, Sky Vegas and the rest: not once have i been asked to send in anything.

It’s always a shame when casinos slide off your favourite radar. But you just replace them; buyers market. Had the same thing with Redbet who have assumed radio silence: when I contacted them to ask why have the perks disappeared etc and when’s the next wagering contest, they told me ‘I cannot divulge that info’ Really? Since when has such a request fallen under the Trade Secrets Act? So I just went back and said it’s obvious that you’re winding down your VIP programme. No response; take that as a yes ?

Absolutely - I can see how some places, trying to foot in, may cross a few blurry lines (doesn't necessarily make them a dodgy operator by any means - there are far more deserving casinos of that accolade

Valdes will know more but there’s been a pattern developing: a lot of casinos are telling players they MUST use their ADR, no other, and they will not discuss anything with another complaints site. They're using GDPR as the reason which I think is BS. Tends to be the bigger ones doing this; some of the smaller ones will still, quite rightly, address the players concerns via whatever medium they want to.