MGA to launch unified Self-Exclusion System for its remote gambling licensees

[ValDes]

Well, well, well check this out!  

 

https://www.mga.org.mt/malta-gaming-authority-to-launch-a-unified-self-exclusion-system-for-its-remote-gaming-licensees/

 

Ain't this a great news! 

 

Curious to hear your thoughts on the matter. 

[cocopop3011]

Great stuff indeed if it does actually get implemented, but it certainly sounds promising. Also good they're considering opening it up to other operarators in other licensed jurisdictions!

[Afi4wins]

Well, I have recently tried to close a few of my accounts at certain casinos and was informed that they can ONLY do a self-exclusion for me! 

After explaining to them why I don't ever want to use a 'self-exclusion' way of closing my account, they finally opted to block off my account but to include a note with it that it wasn't due to any 'responsible gaming' causes. 

 

Now the future problem would be, if a self-exclusion automatically includes all accounts at all casinos...damn! That's going to give me lots of problems! 

 

The rule must be that self-exclusion should either be for 'individual account', 'all accounts' or 'accounts within the same casino group'...NEVER to be for all accounts at once!!! 

 

Let's see if those authoritative guys are smart enough...or otherwise! 

[pinnit2015]

Like Gamstop, I think it’s a good move. From the timeout functions, to loss limits and now this I don’t really see what else casino operators can do to fulfill their ‘social responsibility’ duties (whatever they are...).

 

Problem gambling will remain, err, a problem. Same way as alcoholism. But now you’re seeing it being seen as the same as alcohol/drugs. Arguably it is a greater destroyer of lives as either of these - it just kills you slower.

 

I can’t see it slowing down the increase of issues but for those who have reached the point of wanting help, it will help. But it’s not a solution - not sure if there is one, slots especially have led to a new breed of issues. Instantaneous hits are completely different to once a week lottery tickets :-)

 

But we’re humans. We can’t ban all things that may lead to some falling foul of their appeals but can offer tools like this to assist those who have reached the bottom.

 

Not sure how coco pop licences will move forward ;-)

[pinnit2015]

The problem is Afi that if you take SE in its truest form it really should be for all accounts, at all casinos in the whole of the universe as it’s basically a player saying ‘rock bottom hit’.

 

But you’re right - I’d a fight with a place years ago who told me they simply didn’t close accounts...

 

Which makes me wonder why some places offer SE for only 7 days...that’s a cool off. Again, problem is that some people in the past have used SE when all they needed was a breather.

 

It’ll be ok - I can’t imagine it being implemented retrospectively anyhow and it’ll be done via a single portal anyhow.

[pinnit2015]

And if it’s like the UK you’ll still be able to request SE ,I think, at individual casinos

 

For now... wait until the directive comes that if you’ve SE at one it is for all ;-)

[Afi4wins]

That's the issue there, mate...I have not personally asked for a SE, but forced to use it to close my account, which doesn't make any sense at all! Why some casinos can close accounts, some cannot, is mind boggling!

 

Are we then forced to keep our unwanted accounts open and dormant simply because we cannot get them closed? Or just to accept the SE clause and get all accounts blocked off? That is also mind boggling!

 

Whatever is happening to each individual rights? 

[Afi4wins]

Self-exclusion should only be directed to players having a gambling addiction, or having any other uncontrollable issues related to 'responsible gambling'.

Source of Wealth (SoW) verification should only be directed to big depositors. Don't even think of requiring players who can only afford $20 or so per deposit!

 

One rule cannot be justifiably imposed unto others who don't fall into the required category!

There must be exception clauses included - any law cannot be ambiguously legislated! 

[Afi4wins]

In the last General Election in my country, the ruling coalition party BN took a 'wait and see' attitude...they lost the 14th GE after ruling for 62 years!

 

Should we also wait and see what this unified Self-exclusion ruling would be? Or take steps now to prevent the inevitable? 

[Fiekie247]

That's the issue there, mate...I have not personally asked for a SE, but forced to use it to close my account, which doesn't make any sense at all! Why some casinos can close accounts, some cannot, is mind boggling!

 

Are we then forced to keep our unwanted accounts open and dormant simply because we cannot get them closed? Or just to accept the SE clause and get all accounts blocked off? That is also mind boggling!

 

Whatever is happening to each individual rights? 

Which is why I keep my unwanted accounts open, I receive those dormant emails every now and again etc etc.

 

I tested by trying to close my account at BGO a while back and they SE'd me and I eventually re-opened my account, even though operators say they will close your account, they still self-exclude you and this happened to me twice and pissed me off.

 

I think the system will most probably mean for every account or across all operators who have MGA license, but if it takes over for other Jurisdictions then I am not sure I will ever use this system, unless you can specify where and for which operator you want to SE...

 

However I do not think I will ever SE, but hope this system is helpful to others.

[Fiekie247]

Self-exclusion should only be directed to players having a gambling addiction, or having any other uncontrollable issues related to 'responsible gambling'.

Source of Wealth (SoW) verification should only be directed to big depositors. Don't even think of requiring players who can only afford $20 or so per deposit!

Regarding the self-exclusion portion you are right, because they self-exclude me as well even though I ask for account closures - Very Dangerous... I know I have a gambling addiction problem ( Those can be seen when posting regular in the winner screenshot section :-) ) I feel gambling addiction problem can be good or bad. If you gamble every day - Does that mean you have a gambling addiction problem? If so, does it mean the same thing if you win 80% of the time of your everyday gambling lifestyle? So yes I see  gambling addiction as a problem( When you lose money uncontrollable), but some of us are addicted to Gambling and we win most of the time as well.

 

So I think responsible gambling is more the culprit for self-exclusion mostly, however the addiction in some part as well.

 

SOW - Come-on Afi we know you not that big of a depositor these days ( No Offense) but the fact that Casumo asked you for SOW verification is beyond me. I once got SOW verification on Casumo as well , but my biggest deposit I ever made was $40 at Casumo...

[Afi4wins]

SOW - Come-on Afi we know you not that big of a depositor these days ( No Offense) but the fact that Casumo asked you for SOW verification is beyond me. I once got SOW verification on Casumo as well , but my biggest deposit I ever made was $40 at Casumo...

 

No offense taken mate. 

 

Casumo was the first to ask me for SoW verification, but I got that done and approved after some hassles. But, that will be the first and the last! Casumo no longer exists for me...and one more casino that had required SoW verification also got closed off the same day after registration!

 

The isn't the kind of 'reap what you have sow' thing...this is 'rip my clothes off, like it or not' thing!

 

I wouldn't want to do it, ever, unless it's for my girlfriend or spouse, whichever...or simply because I got drunk and did it...hahaha. 

[ValDes]

It's worth discussing one more different aspect when it comes to self-exclusion matter and especially the situations when it affects brands operating within the same licence. 

 

We've been literally flooded with SE related complaints back in 2016 and early 2017 from players (mostly UK punters though) claiming pretty much the same:

 

- player joined a casino website, registered, deposited , played and lost (most of the times);

- player then 'accidentally' found that casino website is connected to one or more other casino websites with which they have an active SE; 

- player then request full refund claiming the casino operator failed applying Responsible Gaming policies and procedures. 

 

Worried about the scale of the SE avalanche described above, AskGamblers Complaints Team tried to receive some feedback on the matter from the most commonly affected operators and what we found was that the majority of these complainants were not as 'innocent' and 'honest' at all... In fact most of them would try to circumvent  ( or simply put to "cheat") the casino systems by registering under different names, using different cards, emails, addresses, etc and thus putting themselves into an obvious win-win scenario. It was then we implemented the following requirement before accepting and processing any SE related complaint: 

 

 

- a clear copy and/or screenshot of your active self exclusion agreement where the name of the casino, the period of the exclusion as well as the date when it was signed is clearly visible;

 

- a copy and/or screenshot of the registered names, address and email which you used for the purpose of the registration process in all aforementioned casino/s operating under the same licence.

 

And guess what... Out of several hundreds published SE related complaints over the last 18 months we got the requested proofs from... only 3 players!  

 

So, would not hide the fact I am truly happy from both UKGC and MGA working hard on the implementation of such cross-brand, unified SE databases as this would be the end of all these stupid tricks played by both players and casino operators. 

[Afi4wins]

It's worth discussing one more different aspect when it comes to self-exclusion matter and especially the situations when it affects brands operating within the same licence. 

 

We've been literally flooded with SE related complaints back in 2016 and early 2017 from players (mostly UK punters though) claiming pretty much the same:

 

- player joined a casino website, registered, deposited , played and lost (most of the times);

- player then 'accidentally' found that casino website is connected to one or more other casino websites with which they have an active SE; 

- player then request full refund claiming the casino operator failed applying Responsible Gaming policies and procedures. 

 

Worried about the scale of the SE avalanche described above, AskGamblers Complaints Team tried to receive some feedback on the matter from the most commonly affected operators and what we found was that the majority of these complainants were not as 'innocent' and 'honest' at all... In fact most of them would try to circumvent  ( or simply put to "cheat") the casino systems by registering under different names, using different cards, emails, addresses, etc and thus putting themselves into an obvious win-win scenario. It was then we implemented the following requirement before accepting and processing any SE related complaint: 

 

 

And guess what... Out of several hundreds published SE related complaints over the last 18 months we got the requested proofs from... only 3 players!  

 

So, would not hide the fact I am truly happy from both UKGC and MGA working hard on the implementation of such cross-brand, unified SE databases as this would be the end of all these stupid tricks played by both players and casino operators. 

 

As much as I agree with you mate...but such 'offenders' are a minority group, and they do deserve whatever they sow!  

 

But what about the majority of other players who sincerely want to close their individual account at any one casino, without affecting any of their other accounts? Shouldn't this be an even bigger consideration factor? That exceptional clauses should and must be included within that self-exclusion ruling? 

[ValDes]

As much as I agree with you mate...but such 'offenders' are a minority group, and they do deserve whatever they sow!

...

 

On the contrary mate, on the contrary... Our AGCCS records reveals the share of these SE offenders is close to 90% of all players submitted any SE related complaint so far.  

 

 

..

 

But what about the majority of other players who sincerely want to close their individual account at any one casino, without affecting any of their other accounts? Shouldn't this be an even bigger consideration factor? That exceptional clauses should and must be included within that self-exclusion ruling? 

 

I do believe this unified SE database would refer to active SE agreements only and nothing else. There is a clear distinction between account closure, cooling off period and self exclusion even at the moment though and it is duly described within the regulator's provisions. How operators are 'reading' these provisions though is a totally different story of course.  

[Afi4wins]

I do believe this unified SE database would refer to active SE agreements only and nothing else. There is a clear distinction between account closure, cooling off period and self exclusion even at the moment though and it is duly described within the regulator's provisions. How operators are 'reading' these provisions though is a totally different story of course.

 

Well, I certainly hope so mate! But these casino operators must start learning 'how to read' all over again...with the Licensors being their kindergarten teachers...because not one of these operators have 'read' correctly so far!!! 

[pinnit2015]

Whilst I agree that there is a group of people who see a SE complaint as a way of free rolling invase they lose, there is absolutely no reason why casinos on the same licence can’t detect these people at registration at another. They just choose not to do so - LandL and others do this very well, Every Matrix were awful.

 

Players and casinos should have had their heads knocked together :-)

 

As for SOW - woohoo just got another one from GiG group now. Hardly a high roller. Ticked a few boxes this time so that’s fine ;-)

 

Pretty sure support started going downhill when outsourcing really kicked off.

 

As long as those plonkers at LeoVegas don’t start buying other casinos I’ll be fine.