Your opinion about potential outcome in this case

[TimetobeUnited]

This process will happen outside this forum. 

[blondie]

In a nutshell for me it sounds like a casino that is performing some rogue actions. First of all, if they have MGA, how could you play there if you're from Sweden? Don't the casino need a Swedish license to accept Swedish players?

Secondly, not closing someones account who has expressed they have a gambling addiction and that is being ignored is a big red flag. I'm not sure if you can get your deposits back but I certainly would try to put up a fight. But those are my thoughts since I haven't been in your situation. Maybe VaIDes will have some more input to share.

[ValDes]

Hmm, something doesn't quite add up here to be honest...  

First of all, cannot recall any MGA licensed Operator who wouldn't provide Self-Exclusion (as well as the common set of other Responsible Gaming tools such as Deposit/Session/etc limits) tool while browsing My Account options, available for the players to use straight away, at any time and without the need to contact anyone. 

Furthermore, let's not forget that fighting problem gambling issues requires serious efforts from both the Player and the Operator. Why always the Operator should be pointed out as the usual suspect and/or guilty by default?  The scenario described by the OP doesn't really match to the typical problem gambler behaviour but rather suggests clear intention of putting into the win-win scenario where if winning, player keeps low profile and silent, BUT if losing, then claiming problem gambling and Operator's irresponsible attitude towards problem gambler. 

Sorry @TimetobeUnited but I just don't buy your story UNLESS supported with rock solid proofs and of course, justified explanation of the fact WHY you didn't use any of the RG tools offered by the Operator instead of sending emails back and forth. 

[TimetobeUnited]

On 2/21/2021 at 1:55 PM, ValDes said:

Hmm, something doesn't quite add up here to be honest...  

First of all, cannot recall any MGA licensed Operator who wouldn't provide Self-Exclusion (as well as the common set of other Responsible Gaming tools such as Deposit/Session/etc limits) tool while browsing My Account options, available for the players to use straight away, at any time and without the need to contact anyone. 

Furthermore, let's not forget that fighting problem gambling issues requires serious efforts from both the Player and the Operator. Why always the Operator should be pointed out as the usual suspect and/or guilty by default?  The scenario described by the OP doesn't really match to the typical problem gambler behaviour but rather suggests clear intention of putting into the win-win scenario where if winning, player keeps low profile and silent, BUT if losing, then claiming problem gambling and Operator's irresponsible attitude towards problem gambler. 

Sorry @TimetobeUnited but I just don't buy your story UNLESS supported with rock solid proofs and of course, justified explanation of the fact WHY you didn't use any of the RG tools offered by the Operator instead of sending emails back and forth. 

This process will happen outside this forum. 

[ValDes]

7 minutes ago, TimetobeUnited said:

Hi ValDes and thank you for your honest opinion and reply. Not sure if you are aware of how gambling addiction works, but when you come to the conclusion to self-exclude yourself on a permanently basis and ask for it via Mail due to the support not able to assist, you expect it do be done especially when you are mentioning that you have problems with gambling. When that does not not happen after a few days and you receive both freespins and cash backs mail, what do you think the brain says? ”You could just play with the promotional until the closure is Done”. When that does not happen and you deposit one more time, you are back in to the rabbit hole and if you have not been there you can’t understand. The logic for a person with these kind of issues, is not normal. The reason why I did not use the self-excluding tool was because I expected  me to be permanently closed due to the fact I both contacted live support and mailsupport. Why would I have asked for a permanently closure on my account and mentioned my problems, just to deposit more money and with a win I would probably not be able to withdrawal if the processes was working? 

I have proof on all my e-mails sent from the gmail I created my account with, and I have also raised a normal complaint and added the communication sent by me. 

Okay, have just checked our AGCCS database in order to see the name of the Operator... Of course, it will be the AskGamblers Complaint Team who will review your case, tomorrow most probably, so they will let you know the outcome of your complaint. However, as explained in my previous post, you failed to explain why you didn't use any of the RG tools available? 

This is from the affected Operator's dedicated RG page: 

  

[TimetobeUnited]

This process will happen outside this forum. 

[ValDes]

2 minutes ago, TimetobeUnited said:

Hi again, 

I did edit my answer but adding it to a new Comment, about why I did not using RG-tools. 

Edit: and regarding not using RG-tools, I think the maximum suspension time is 30 days, and that does not work for people like me. After 30 days we will be back and think we could win back our losses, therefore a permanently closure is what is needed, which livesupport or RG-tools can’t do, therefore I sent e-mails which the livesupport asked me to do. 
 

As mentioned in my post, I did ask for a permanently closure on my account, but they froze it with no end date, I was able to open it up a few days after via their livesupport and deposit money. So that is one more argument of why I turned to have a permanently closure instead of just a temporary freeze, which would not work in my case. 

Really?! Let me help you for the next time when you find yourself into same/similar situation then... Pay attention to the part underlined in blue.

 

[TimetobeUnited]

Exactly, and to selfexclude for that period of time you need to contact them via e-mail which I did... if I would have used the temporary self-excludement with maximum 30 days I would be able to contact their support and open my account again? Or am I thinking wrong? 

[ValDes]

4 minutes ago, TimetobeUnited said:

Exactly, and to selfexclude for that period of time you need to contact them via e-mail which I did... if I would have used the temporary self-excludement with maximum 30 days I would be able to contact their support and open my account again? Or am I thinking wrong? 

Yes, I'm afraid you are thinking completely wrong, simply because you don't know MGA RG stipulations in details. 

Should you've been completely honest about your problem gambling issues you could have easily used the SE tool and set your account under UP to 5 years SE without the option of being reopened as shown on the attached SS above. Something you obviously failed to do for reasons only you know...  You could of course sent the permanent SE request afterwards but your account would have been closed and you would have been protected in the meantime. 

Anyway, since you are obviously having troubles with knowing how most recent MGA RG procedures work, please find attached the official paperwork which I'm sure will be of great use. 

https://www.mga.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/Directive-2-of-2018-Player-Protection-Directive.pdf

[TimetobeUnited]

This process will happen outside this forum. 

[blondie]

Thanks for the input VaIDes, can always learn something new. Have to agree about self exclusion though, it gives options to self exclude for longer than 30 days as the post owner said. One question though, if you sent emails, do you have proof of it, that it was sent to the correct email address? I find it a bit difficult to understand why a casino with MGA license wouldn't reply to your email.

[TimetobeUnited]

This process will happen outside this forum. 

[pinnit2015]

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. 

[pinnit2015]

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. 

[TimetobeUnited]

21 minutes ago, pinnit2015 said:

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. 

Hi Pinnit, thanks for your reply. In my case I think there is something wrong with the process and I think I know what is not working. We will see what the compliant team replies, but I’ll keep you updated about the process. I don’t think this casino was doing it on purpose, just a bug in the process and therefore I hope they see my claim as valid. 
 

I think casinos have a responsibility for gambling issues, but I do also think that they can’t identify everyone by alghoritms, but when you indicate or telling them that you have it they are responsible to act properly. 
 

As you can see in a similiar complaint I refered to but with another casino, the player did not use the RG-tools provided but asked them via Mail to be permanently closed which did not happen. The casino accepted that they were wrong and even gave this player a compensation for their handling of the situation. I don’t say that this automatically means I am right, but regarding using the the RG-tools or not, I think it is applicable. 
 

 

[ValDes]

18 hours ago, TimetobeUnited said:

Ok, as I said, I am grateful for your opinion but don’t agree tbh. Here you have a similiar complaint as mine: https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/vulkanvegas-casino-did-not-close-my-account-after-several-requests

I don’t understand why the use of RG-tools or not are so important when I did contact livesupport and mailsupport? When you have sent an e-mail asking for permanent closure of your account you think that should be enough, don’t you agree? And then I have followed above information stated in your printscreen. ”In order to request a permanent self-exclusion, please send an e-mail to..”.  the casino might have an explanation on why the process did not work accordingly and then we will take it from there. 

The example you gave is quite different simply because the affected Operator was Curacao licensed. And we all know this particular license has a LOT MORE to do when it comes to setting better and MANDATORY requirements towards players protection and problem gambling. And that's the main reason why we are more liberal towards players when they come to us with RG related issues referring to Curacao licensed Operators. 

In your case we talk about MGA licensed Operator which as far as I can see from their RG page is following strictly ALL the relevant RG requirements set by the regulatory body. Let me repeat again - you had the opportunity to put your account under active SE for as long as UP TO 5 YEARS with a single click of your mouse and yet, you didn't do it. Instead, you asked for PERMANENT SE which is NOT stipulated as a MANDATORY option which MGA licensed Operators much have and that's why you had to send emails to specified email address. Sorry, but I just think you don't have a valid case. 

[pinnit2015]

5 minutes ago, TimetobeUnited said:

Hi Pinnit, thanks for your reply. In my case I think there is something wrong with the process and I think I know what is not working. We will see what the compliant team replies, but I’ll keep you updated about the process. I don’t think this casino was doing it on purpose, just a bug in the process and therefore I hope they see my claim as valid. 
 

I think casinos have a responsibility for gambling issues, but I do also think that they can’t identify everyone by alghoritms, but when you indicate or telling them that you have it they are responsible to act properly. 
 

As you can see in a similiar complaint I refered to but with another casino, the player did not use the RG-tools provided but asked them via Mail to be permanently closed which did not happen. The casino accepted that they were wrong and even gave this player a compensation for their handling of the situation. I don’t say that this automatically means I am right, but regarding using the the RG-tools or not, I think it is applicable. 
 

 

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. 

[TimetobeUnited]

On 2/22/2021 at 9:26 AM, ValDes said:

The example you gave is quite different simply because the affected Operator was Curacao licensed. And we all know this particular license has a LOT MORE to do when it comes to setting better and MANDATORY requirements towards players protection and problem gambling. And that's the main reason why we are more liberal towards players when they come to us with RG related issues referring to Curacao licensed Operators. 

In your case we talk about MGA licensed Operator which as far as I can see from their RG page is following strictly ALL the relevant RG requirements set by the regulatory body. Let me repeat again - you had the opportunity to put your account under active SE for as long as UP TO 5 YEARS with a single click of your mouse and yet, you didn't do it. Instead, you asked for PERMANENT SE which is NOT stipulated as a MANDATORY option which MGA licensed Operators much have and that's why you had to send emails to specified email address. Sorry, but I just think you don't have a valid case. 

This process will happen outside this forum. 

[ValDes]

And you were obviously given ALL the required options as seen on the screenshots attached to my responses above - choosing SE for UP to 5 years OR sending email for permanent  SE. Since you claim your case falls under this part here - https://prnt.sc/103kloo, mind you, there isn't a concrete period of time in which the Operator must act accordingly. Therefore, this particular situation is open for different interpretations, therefore, from the MGA's competence to review and decide. Which is exactly what I intend to recommend for the AskGamblers Complaint Team to do while reviewing your AGCCS case. 

Again, I was totally straightforward and honest by saying out loud my opinion. And yes, I know this isn't exactly what you wanted to hear but hey, let's leave the part with who's right and who's wrong here for the only competent authority to decide - the MGA. 

Good luck and keep us posted! I'm really really eager to hear what they will rule. 

[TimetobeUnited]

On 2/22/2021 at 10:36 AM, ValDes said:

And you were obviously given ALL the required options as seen on the screenshots attached to my responses above - choosing SE for UP to 5 years OR sending email for permanent  SE. Since you claim your case falls under this part here - https://prnt.sc/103kloo, mind you, there isn't a concrete period of time in which the Operator must act accordingly. Therefore, this particular situation is open for different interpretations, therefore, from the MGA's competence to review and decide. Which is exactly what I intend to recommend for the AskGamblers Complaint Team to do while reviewing your AGCCS case. 

Again, I was totally straightforward and honest by saying out loud my opinion. And yes, I know this isn't exactly what you wanted to hear but hey, let's leave the part with who's right and who's wrong here for the only competent authority to decide - the MGA. 

Good luck and keep us posted! I'm really really eager to hear what they will rule. 

This process will happen outside this forum. 

[ValDes]

Ouch, plot twist!

Have just been informed by my colleagues from the AskGamblers Complaint Team that there isn't any valid evidence that you mentioned ANY problem gambling issues in the attached files. Not a word of it... 

[TimetobeUnited]

On 2/22/2021 at 10:50 AM, ValDes said:

Ouch, plot twist!

Have just been informed by my colleagues from the AskGamblers Complaint Team that there isn't any valid evidence that you mentioned ANY problem gambling issues in the attached files. Not a word of it... 

[ValDes]

Really?  

As far as I can see my colleagues already rejected your AGCCS case and recommended you to forward the matter in font of the relevant regulatory body directly. 

Regardless what I honestly think about your case in general, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you!

Please keep us posted. Thanks. 

[TimetobeUnited]

On 2/22/2021 at 11:13 AM, ValDes said:

Really?  

As far as I can see my colleagues already rejected your AGCCS case and recommended you to forward the matter in font of the relevant regulatory body directly. 

Regardless what I honestly think about your case in general, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you!

Please keep us posted. Thanks. 

This process will happen outside this forum. 

[Blackjax]

I hope my point does not derail the entire discussion which is going on but its really amazing that the OP here is trying to prove that the casinos are not trying hard enough to stop 'HIM' from gambling. Also the OP has not mentioned what methods is he following to stop himself from gambling. 

I AM NOT TAKING ANY CASINOS SIDE. I understand gambling addiction can ruin your and your families life but still to only talk about what casinos are doing to stop one person and not doing enough just for him is too harsh. If you are going to self exclude and still open more account or if you use your significant others ID or your friends ID (probably not relevant in this case but still) to gamble. what exactly is the point of casinos efforts.