[Marsh.]

I wouldn't say the regulation is too much personally.

[Oliver_W]

I think over a thousand shop closures (counting Will Hill) would beg differ.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I think over a thousand shop closures (counting Will Hill) would beg differ.

And I think the millions of people who suffer addiction would beg to differ.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by michael21

So just to sum up

Betting shops bad

Online betting good

Nope, online betting is extremely bad tbh. The industry is ridiculous and even when proper wins happen they use ridiculous terms to not pay out; Betting 'in person; is of course, massively better in that regard. At least you know you will get your winnings, as its direct to your bloody hand.

Also from personal experience, online betting can get out of hand very quickly, the 'safeguards' in place do not work really, as when 'in the mood' someones not really going to purposely press a button that will exclude them for a day or whatever. I have gambled for as long as I can remember, even when a child I would look forward to the 2p pushy machines when I went to the coast, more than anything else. I have lost control 'in person' a hanful of times, but never ever spend as much as I have when lapsing online. I literally clear my bank account before I will stop, regardless of what was meant with that cash..then lend it from people to buy essentials for ****s sake. Its utterly ridiculous when writing it down..I know it is. But it still happens. And even though I have signed up to gamstop, the national exclusion database, casinos still let me sign up and deposit endlessly, BUT, when a withdrawal is requested after a win, they THEN suddenly realise I am on gamstop and use that to refuse to pay out. Its sick, and exploitative. And I know this, yet have an addiction so go back again and again, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I know this yet still do it again and again, thinking maybe this time, they will pay out given they have allowed hundred of deposits and the withdrawal is for half of what I have put in. Yet nope, again and again. So gamstop, the thing most applauded as helping problem gamblers, is utter utter ****e in reality for helping people to stop. All it has done, is give casinos yet another reason to refuse to pay out...but also lets them take deposits endlessly...the gamstop registration is only ever noticed once a withdrawal is requested, time and time again. Its not a mistake, or an error, if its industry wide and over and over tbh.

Did not mean that to go into essays tbh.

[Vicky.]

Regulation for in store places might well be the reason for closures.

But regulation for online gambling is massively lacking. They do what they want, and appear to rip off many many people by suddenly refusing payouts with unfair terms, yet nothnig is done. Apparently thres the UKGC to help, but in reality again, I have contacted them about obvious term abuse (before I signed up to gamstop..when willhill online refused a large win being paid due to some obscure term, despite it being my first ever withdrawal request and money paid into the site was over 3k over time. And the withdrawal was still less than what had been put in) but they wont speak about individual cases...so, useless to single gamblers of course.

Ugh. I don't think its a good thing letting this all out on here as..well I don't really like giving out personal details given whats happened in the past. But when I see this spoke about, I kind of think I have to give my experience too.

And yes, I do know its my own fault, yadayada. I know its stupid. I know I should 'just stop'. But as with any addiction, its not really the case that thats possible and as easy as people think. When in normal mind I know that its stupid. But am not always in normal mind..

[Marsh.]

Oh, yes, the regulation will play a part in their closures. But that doesn't make the regulation too much.

As TS says, exploiting an addiction should never be an accepted form of making money.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Oh, yes, the regulation will play a part in their closures. But that doesn't make the regulation too much.

As TS says, exploiting an addiction should never be an accepted form of making money.

Agreed, obviously

I wish online regulation was as strict as it appears in instore regulation is. Would help many many people. Apparently its something like 80k people signed on gamstop, even though its a new-ish thing. Many more will still be in grips of addiction though not notice/care yet. And online places are purposely allowing even those signed up to register and deposit. Then suddenly click on when something is asked to be paid out. Its obviously done for the sole reason, of exploiting addictions in such cases. Theres been cases where people have rquested big withdrawals and casinos have spent ages trying to get them to reverse them by offering bonuses and such for cancelling it. Ugh, I could go on forever about this so will stop.

[Marsh.]

So, what's happening, they're not checking the gamstop list when people sign up, only when they try to withdraw?

I take it they block the accounts you already had before self-excluding?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So, what's happening, they're not checking the gamstop list when people sign up, only when they try to withdraw?

Yup, though I suspect they are checking gamstop and basically, allowing the account through as they know someone signed up on there is likely a compulsive spender so..profits! Thats a bit conspiracy like though, so lets go with they arent checking on signup instead, making them incompetant, rather than purposely exploitative.

I take it they block the accounts you already had before self-excluding?

Sometimes. Some just leave them. And allow you to deposit and deposit, then being up gamstop if you request a withdrawal. Thats what unibet did to me. And when I brought up how they left the account open despite my registraton, and have let deposit after deposit go through and have only 'randomly' clicked on when a withdrawal was requested, they claimed I had broke gamstops T&Cs by 'trying to access a gambling account when I was signed up to gamstop' I posted the email I got in one of the gambling threads..its just utter bollocks. I told them, if they refuse to pay a withdrawal due to a gamstop registration that was made in October 2018 that they are suddenly saying is relevant, then SURELY..any deposits made since october 2018 should also be refunded, as the account was not valid, as they are claiming now? But no, they are keeping all deposits and just blocking the withdrawal, and it seems online regulation allows this. Its not nly unibet this has happened with. Theres a long long list.

And yeah, again before people start, I do take responsibility for my own actins in this. But still think companies should be held to a higher standard and that its simply unfair for casinos to place players in a lose/lose situation on purpose the way they do. And with known problem gamblers too (those already signed up to a 'national database') for ****s sake..

Oh, unibet used the fact that the phone number on my unibet account did not match the one on my gamstop account and thats how the 'mistake' happened. I made the unibet account in 2015 apparently, and its apparently odd that by 2018 I had a different number? They all claim that ONE thing thats diferent on the account, be it phone number or email address, and it 'slips through' the database. Gamstop claim its only 4/5 things that need to match and the account will be caught in the net. But either way, gamstop does have in their T&Cs that its against the 'rules' for problem gamblers to try to log into their old accounts, or to try and make new ones. So obviously they understand gambling addictions 100%..

Edit. The unibet email post is http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...7&postcount=23

[Marsh.]

Ah, it's a tricky one. In work we were told if anyone self-excluded manages to play a machine, print out their ticket give them their money back and ask them to leave. But, obviously if they've managed to actually spin anything or lost anything they don't get a refund.

But then again, if you don't spot someone on your shop's exclusion list that will put your job on the line. I imagine online it's a lot easier to block/check an identity before allowing it access to your site.

Have you tried complaining to gamstop themselves, that despite signing up you've still been allowed to spend money? (Edit: Just read your reply)

I completely agree, yes you're responsible for your own actions, but you've signed up for help for a reason. They should definitely be held to a standard of not accepting money from someone excluded from gambling. That different phone number bulls*t is ridiculous.

Although the whole system is a joke tbh, we have some black white photos that have gone through about 12 different photocopiers and we're supposed to recognise strangers off the back of them.

[Vicky.]

I don't expect them to payout pay winnings but also refund any loses, that would be unreaonsable and place the casino in a lose/lose situation. Sounds like your shop has it about right. Assuming, if they played say one spin and hit a big win, you would also pay that out, then ask them to leave? Like, not sit and watch them play endlessly, then run over when a win happens and tell them to leave, but no money be given to them for the win?

However, the casinos to decide if they are going to pay out winnings to excluded players (which..would encourage more exlucded players to try and sign up..really) THEN close the account OR if they are going to refund the deposits of players found to be excluded before closing the account. One or the other. Doing what they are currently doing is unethical IMO. They cannot both keep deposits, but also refuse winnings. Thats obviously placing the player in lose/lose.

And them letting players play because phone numbers are different, but then suddenly realising they are on the database after many many deposits..is ridiculous in itself. Especially when they claim they have no actual access to the database? So surely in that case, if they ran the details and they did not come up at the time for whatever reason, then when they run the details when a withdrawal is requested, there still would not be a match, as its the same details. Its just such bollocks. But allowed. So of course they will take advantage of it while they can. But its wrong. Totally wrong.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't expect them to payout pay winnings but also refund any loses, that would be unreaonsable and place the casino in a lose/lose situation. Sounds like your shop has it about right. Assuming, if they played say one spin and hit a big win, you would also pay that out, then ask them to leave? Like, not sit and watch them play endlessly, then run over when a win happens and tell them to leave, but no money be given to them for the win?

I guess so. If they've already won at the moment we disabled a machine and printed its receipt they'd walk out with the winnings on the ticket.

If they spin something and there's no money left to take out, then they'd leave with nothing. But, obviously, hopefully, staff are spotting people within seconds so an excluded customer isn't able to play anything (and if they do no more than a couple of quid) before they're spotted and asked to leave.

[michael21]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Nope, online betting is extremely bad tbh. The industry is ridiculous and even when proper wins happen they use ridiculous terms to not pay out; Betting 'in person; is of course, massively better in that regard. At least you know you will get your winnings, as its direct to your bloody hand.

Also from personal experience, online betting can get out of hand very quickly, the 'safeguards' in place do not work really, as when 'in the mood' someones not really going to purposely press a button that will exclude them for a day or whatever. I have gambled for as long as I can remember, even when a child I would look forward to the 2p pushy machines when I went to the coast, more than anything else. I have lost control 'in person' a hanful of times, but never ever spend as much as I have when lapsing online. I literally clear my bank account before I will stop, regardless of what was meant with that cash..then lend it from people to buy essentials for ****s sake. Its utterly ridiculous when writing it down..I know it is. But it still happens. And even though I have signed up to gamstop, the national exclusion database, casinos still let me sign up and deposit endlessly, BUT, when a withdrawal is requested after a win, they THEN suddenly realise I am on gamstop and use that to refuse to pay out. Its sick, and exploitative. And I know this, yet have an addiction so go back again and again, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I know this yet still do it again and again, thinking maybe this time, they will pay out given they have allowed hundred of deposits and the withdrawal is for half of what I have put in. Yet nope, again and again. So gamstop, the thing most applauded as helping problem gamblers, is utter utter ****e in reality for helping people to stop. All it has done, is give casinos yet another reason to refuse to pay out...but also lets them take deposits endlessly...the gamstop registration is only ever noticed once a withdrawal is requested, time and time again. Its not a mistake, or an error, if its industry wide and over and over tbh.

Did not mean that to go into essays tbh.

The way I see it is if there not paying you winnings then all bet you have places should be void and all money retrun to you or there can pay what you won there cant have it both ways

[michael21]

Also bank could to help I think

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by michael21

The way I see it is if there not paying you winnings then all bet you have places should be void and all money retrun to you or there can pay what you won there cant have it both ways

Exactly. Its one or the other. Can't be both.

If they were not paying winnings because..say..I had made multiple accounts to claim a bonus then of couse thats very different. But if they are not paying because they have suddenly realised I am meant to be excluded for problem gambling, then they should either pay out, or refund all deposits that have been made since the date I am meant to be excluded from, as they claim all bets are void from the date of exclusion when denying winnings...so surely, that means all bets are void. Which would mean all losing bets void from that date also.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I guess so. If they've already won at the moment we disabled a machine and printed its receipt they'd walk out with the winnings on the ticket.

If they spin something and there's no money left to take out, then they'd leave with nothing. But, obviously, hopefully, staff are spotting people within seconds so an excluded customer isn't able to play anything (and if they do no more than a couple of quid) before they're spotted and asked to leave.

Yeah, I get expecting staff to notice. Mind, if they are giving crappy photos to memorize then..its quite hard in most cases I would think. We used to be expected to memorize pictures on people on some scheme called 'pubwatch'..was all people who had been issues in bars and had been bad enough to be banned from all on the scheme. But..some of the photos looked **** all like the person and honestly, in a busy nightclub where we were serving literally hundreds of people per night, I think it was kind of unreasonable to expect us to recognise a list of like 50 people who were meant to be barred. Its a bit easier for the bouncers as they are meant to check people properly, but my job was shouting 'whos next' to a gaggle of people..then sometimes not even seeing whos shouting..doing the drinks asap!

If in theory, someone who was winning would get their winnings then be chucked out then thats fair. And you obviously should not refund anything of losers (which would be quite hard anyway, as you wouldn't know they were telling the truth about losses in an actual shop) because you pay winners.

Its this not paying winners and also keeping deposits, I find massively unfair. As I said, they should do one or the other, not both.

Originally Posted by michael21

Also bank could to help I think

Bank can't help as I authorized the deposits. If I claimed I didn't and paid by debit card I could potentially do a chargeback of all I had ever deposited, but I feel a dick doing that and its technically fraud too Plus its likely to be taken back from me when the casino replies to the banks letters.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Exactly. Its one or the other. Can't be both.

If they were not paying winnings because..say..I had made multiple accounts to claim a bonus then of couse thats very different. But if they are not paying because they have suddenly realised I am meant to be excluded for problem gambling, then they should either pay out, or refund all deposits that have been made since the date I am meant to be excluded from, as they claim all bets are void from the date of exclusion when denying winnings...so surely, that means all bets are void. Which would mean all losing bets void from that date also.

Completely agree with this.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah, I get expecting staff to notice. Mind, if they are giving crappy photos to memorize then..its quite hard in most cases I would think. We used to be expected to memorize pictures on people on some scheme called 'pubwatch'..was all people who had been issues in bars and had been bad enough to be banned from all on the scheme. But..some of the photos looked **** all like the person and honestly, in a busy nightclub where we were serving literally hundreds of people per night, I think it was kind of unreasonable to expect us to recognise a list of like 50 people who were meant to be barred. Its a bit easier for the bouncers as they are meant to check people properly, but my job was shouting 'whos next' to a gaggle of people..then sometimes not even seeing whos shouting..doing the drinks asap!

Yeah. The couple of shops I go between are quite quiet so not too bad but some of the busier ones it's ridiculous.

The same for all the conmen on fuzzy CCTV so we're looking for a faceless man in jeans called "Bob".

[Vicky.]

The same for all the conmen on fuzzy CCTV so we're looking for a faceless man in jeans called "Bob".

Reminds me of a time the police came in to let us know that if someone who was middle aged, wearing jeans and shirt, average height and build and dark hair..came into the bar, we were not to serve them and to call the police to let them know. He might also have changed clothes so bear that in mind.. Erm. So any bloke with dark hair and middle aged (which can span anything to like 30-60 in reality) comes in and we had to say no, detain them (how?) and call the police? That was half of our ****ing clientele for ****s sake..obviously, we did not do this and still had no problems so either he did not come in, or had chilled by that point, but come on..really...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yeah. The couple of shops I go between are quite quiet so not too bad but some of the busier ones it's ridiculous.



The same for all the conmen on fuzzy CCTV so we're looking for a faceless man in jeans called "Bob".

At one point we had 37 active self exclusions, 10 dodgy faces to watch for, and three with full trespass order... And we were short on full time staff so at least three days a week we had staff members who weren't even based in the shop. The chances of people actually knowing those faces, if they're not regular staff members who already knew the customer when they were active, are zilch . The trespass orders everyone will know because there's usually a juicy story behind it . The rest, it's just unrealistic.

Vicky: the stance you're being given makes no sense. Either the bets are void, in which case you get back any money lost... Or they're not, and you're entitled to any winnings that are left in the account. They can't have it both ways. Though I gave seen funds being "frozen" in an account for dubious "security reasons" - over Ł1100 - and it took the guy 7 months of phone calls to get the money released.

[Vicky.]

I think the exclusion schemes for physical shops are a bit stupid in all honesty. You can only really expect staff to recognise people who are regulars. Like, if I excluded from the place I use, it would be easy as the staff know me on sight. But to expect that to translate to every shop in a 20 mile radious, and to expect people in a shop I had never used to recognise me and chuck me out..would clearly be stupid and..unworkable.

Its not the case online though. They should recognise people based off a national database. As really surely, only the name, DOB, and address should be enough, **** emails and phone numbers matching.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Vicky: the stance you're being given makes no sense. Either the bets are void, in which case you get back any money lost... Or they're not, and you're entitled to any winnings that are left in the account. They can't have it both ways.

Which has been my point for months now But it seems theres no way realistically to solve this as the gambling comission cares not. ECOGRA agree with me and have said in multiple judgements that its not enough to simply deny winnings, in such a case deposits should be refunded too. Havent yet launched an actual ecogra thing yet though as it seems pointless as they do not actually have the power to make sites pay out either way..just to advise them. And a site thats being so..ridiculous, is not going to listen to pleasant advice to do the opposite of what they are doing. As what they are doing is clearly on purpose, its meant to be this way as its a loophole they have found.

Edit. And even despite this, despite being in the same battle with multiple operators for months..I will still at some stage usually when medicated, decide its a good idea to do it again Its so ridiculous when looked at with current mind.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I think the exclusion schemes for physical shops are a bit stupid in all honesty. You can only really expect staff to recognise people who are regulars. Like, if I excluded from the place I use, it would be easy as the staff know me on sight. But to expect that to translate to every shop in a 20 mile radious, and to expect people in a shop I had never used to recognise me and chuck me out..would clearly be stupid and..unworkable.

Its not the case online though. They should recognise people based off a national database. As really surely, only the name, DOB, and address should be enough, **** emails and phone numbers matching.

Exactly. If Terry who has been in every day for five years self excludes in his regular shop and comes in you can just say "sigh... **** off Terry." but self exclusions from 20+ miles away come in sometimes, unless it's a very distinctive looking person you're just not going to know.

As for details matching up it does seem like nonsense that they wouldn't. If you try to set up a new account in shop and the name, d.o.b and postcode match it'll flag as a duplicate straight away.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Exactly. If Terry who has been in every day for five years self excludes in his regular shop and comes in you can just say "sigh... **** off Terry." but self exclusions from 20+ miles away come in sometimes, unless it's a very distinctive looking person you're just not going to know.

As for details matching up it does seem like nonsense that they wouldn't. If you try to set up a new account in shop and the name, d.o.b and postcode match it'll flag as a duplicate straight away.

Quite. Its just obvious bollocks to me. But designed to be obvious bollocks tbh. Its tiring dealing with them and their excuses sometimes. Mind, unibet quickly decided this was the 'final say on the matter and we will not reply to further correspondance'. The others have ****ed me around with excuses for a long time now

Oddly, only 'betat' has been fair in this so far. They also denied a withdrawal mind, only clicked onto it when requested and tried the 'only just realised you are on gamstop' thing. When I told them if bets were void due to exclusion the deposits should surely be refunded, they refunded the deposits without question. And the deposit amounts were more than the withdrawal request too, a fair amount more too. So if they were trying to scam me, they could have went 'ok, well heres your withdrawal' but they chose to go with 'we said all bets were void so that includes losing ones' which IMO, gives them much integrity and kind of sets them aside from the likes of unibet who will shower bollocks upon bollocks to get out of paying anything.

I do kind of think though you should not have to tell them stuff like that, if they do have a policy where all bets are void from date of exclusion then, when exclusion is discovered, they should close the accont, and void all bets at that stage..back to the exclusion date, including losing ones, and return to the player whatever the balance is after all the voiding is done.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

A lot of high staking customers opting not to bet online because you have to provide personal information, and your economy argument not working because some customers who don't spend in the shops due to their closures are spending online is not contradictory. It's two separate statements about two separate things.

Again, "high staking customers" are not all customers.

You are tying yourself up in knots here.. if the big spenders don't want to bet online and the FOBT is capped where are they going to spend their money?
It may not help the economy but i hope it does, should bookies close and the temptation at every turn removed on the high St hopefully those who may have an issue will be able to resist the urge.
I'm aware high staking customers are not all customers, they are however those who are being aided by the regulation here. Again I think regulation is a good thing and store closures are a good thing. Yes theRe are some job losses but ultimately I'd say that's for for the greater good of aiding gambling addicts.