Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

Self Exclusion - CM Accredited Casino

F

funex

Non-Gambler
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Location
Portugal
Hi everyone,
Last year I decided to have a break from gambling as I felt that it was getting out of control.
I had an account with almost every Casinomeister accredited casino, so I started following the list and asking for a self exclusion period from 2 to 5 years, all of them complied without any major complications.

This afternoon, I lost the battle to the gambling "illness" and decided to play again.

I contacted several casinos asking if my self exclusion period was due, and if they could re-open the account.

32Red, bet10, luckynugget, crazyvegas were quite professional and strict, they informed me that I would only be allowed play once the self exclusion period was due.
However, there was one casino that I won't say the name for now, which reopened my account within a blink of an eye, although I had requested in 2012 for a 5 year self exclusion period. (once I started the chat, in 2 mns I was playing again)

So it happens that I had one of my worst sessions ever and lost a few K's. I feel like punching someone in the throat, mainly myself.

The reason why I'm posting this is to ask you if it is from common knowledge, for a Casinomeister accredited casino to be so careless and not follow strict procedures regarding responsible gaming towards their players?
Should I have been allowed to reopen my account, whilst it was obvious to the agent that I have had gambling issues?

I only have to blame myself, but I feel that the casino should also be held responsible.

Any opinions about this type of issue, has it been widely discussed before?

Cheers,
(Sorry for my English)
 
When you closed your account, were you clear that the self-exclusion you requested was due to gambling problems?

I'd start with contacting the rep here for the casino.

Go and read that casino's terms for exclusion periods too. Did they breach them in any way? Some may say min 6 months, or some request a 3 day or 7 day cooling off period before they will re-open an account.

Don't name names for now. If the rep doesn't handle it to your satisfaction, you can try the PAB service.

Try not to beat yourself up too badly, slips are part of addiction recovery for most people. And while you may have lost a few K the other night, you probably would have lost a lot more had you not gambled for so long.

I'd wish you luck, but somehow it seems inappropriate, so I will just wish you all the best.
 
Thank your for your reply jasminebed.

I requested in 2012 for a 5 year self exclusion period.

I have checked the T&C and it stands:

"21.2 You may at any time request that Your Account be closed for the reason of problem gambling. The account will be closed without hesitation and will remain closed forever. Should we deem it unwise or unhealthy for any account to be reopened, then it will be closed forever at the sole discretion of Broadway Gaming Ltd."

Not much more than this is stated in their T&C.

I will contact the rep as you advised, thank you.
I'll post any updates
 

You gave away which casino/s these were when you posted that term :/ Broadway Gaming LTD have Butlers Bingo & Glossy Bingo.

If you requested that your exclusion was for 5 years then they definitely should not have re opened it under any circumstances just like those you mentioned that would not honour your request.

This does not mean you are entitled to your money back as you are an adult but the casino really should not have let you re open your account in the first place.

Ian?

Cheers
Matt
 
Last edited:
have to agree with Matt. The casino is wrong in the fact they let you play. In saying that, you cant really expect them to give you your $ back can you? You approached them, they didn't approach you. And its not like casino's hold guns to our heads and force us to put our $ in, we are all gamblers and know exactly what we are doing:o

In saying all that, maybe your'll get a goodwill bonus chip or something? ;)
 
Let's wait to hear the full story from Ian first.

One thing is for sure.....the player is 100% responsible for 100% of their losses. A player that cannot accept that will always be an active compulsive gambler and end up repeating the cycle over and over.

Let's face it...they could have gone to any non-accredited casino, blown the lot, and had absolutely no recourse. I sincerely hope that the reason the OP chose to target accredited casinos was not to freeroll them. I've seen it done.
 
funex said:
I feel like punching someone in the throat, mainly myself.
Click to expand...

"Mainly" yourself? It should be exclusively yourself. If I ask to be self-excluded from a B&M casino and somehow manage to sneak in for whatever reason (even staff incompetence), I'm 100% responsible for what happens next. Now if they would send promotions and free chips, it would be very unethical but that's not the case here: you clearly tried to cheat and succeeded.

Self-exclusion is literally asking others to protect you against yourself. It's not a right, it's a service.
 
This is unfortunate. There are strict rules concerning SE and 32red etc. followed them to the letter, as they should. Ultimately the OP is responsible, but the UKGC I believe has a section on this whereby if you (SE player) open another account and it sneaks past checks, it should be neutralized, and no winnings paid and deposits refunded. Now as Nifty says, this can be an invitation to some to play for nothing but then again the player would not have got any winnings either. In this case though, it wasn't a duplicate account but a request to reopen an existing SE account. I read an account a couple of years ago on a GA thread whereby a SE player rang Ladbrokes up, persuaded CS to let him play and lost 5k. He was refunded after complaining, a few weeks later because Ladbrokes deemed the CS to be in breach of responsible gaming rules. I doubt he would have been as lucky if this was an offshore operation and not a big UK name.
Now, for the benefit of VWM, there are a couple of legal precedents on this one; a case a couple of years ago in the UK press had an addicted greyhound owner who lost hundreds of thousands AFTER excluding from High Street premises lose a case against Will Hill (AFAICR) but I can't recall the exact words of the judgement, but the summation mentioned the gambler had made every effort to dodge the SE and Will Hill would have had to go beyond what is reasonably expected of them to stop him.
The OP clearly had a severe urge to gamble and made every effort to do so, but IMO the CS should NOT have allowed under any circumstances him to play unless his SE period had expired. That is the whole point of the SE facility, which failed here.
 
self exclusion

Having worked in the Bookmakers industry for many many years i did come across punters asking for self exclusion every day of the week.
Yes it was hard to control due to having more than one shop as unless staff at other shops were eagle eyed then the person who asked for it could easily bet in the other shops.
Yes i did hear stories about punters trying to take court action as they said they should never be allowed to bet elswhere.
However with the casino this should be straightforward.The casino should keep to their policy.As for opening accounts elswhere then yes its up to the individual to control the addiction.As hard as that may be i do feel sorry for people who need help and there are people out there willing to help.
 
Nifty29 said:
Let's wait to hear the full story from Ian first.

One thing is for sure.....the player is 100% responsible for 100% of their losses. A player that cannot accept that will always be an active compulsive gambler and end up repeating the cycle over and over.

Let's face it...they could have gone to any non-accredited casino, blown the lot, and had absolutely no recourse. I sincerely hope that the reason the OP chose to target accredited casinos was not to freeroll them. I've seen it done.
Click to expand...

Firstly, let me say I'm sorry to have referred the casino by mistake, while pasting the terms and conditions, it wasn't my intention.
---

I'm aware that I'm responsible for my losses, I'm also aware that I have a gambling issue and the main reason I only play accredited casinos from Casinomeister is to somewhat protect myself from even more harm.

My intentions when I started this thread were not to have a free ride, I was just feeling really frustrated, depressed and angry with myself and the casino, as I felt that these type of situations were for granted to be safe and I would be protected.

However, I do feel that the casino should consider the refund of the deposits as one of the measurements to fix this situation, as also reviewing their T&C and pass the role of responsible gaming/account review to a security department, instead of a regular livechat agent, within a matter of seconds.

quoting dunover (and I thank you for your useful information about the T&C):
The OP clearly had a severe urge to gamble and made every effort to do so, but IMO the CS should NOT have allowed under any circumstances him to play unless his SE period had expired. That is the whole point of the SE facility, which failed here.
Click to expand...

Thank you guys for participating on this thread
 
Good morning all.

It's another busy morning here at Butlers HQ but just wanted to pop in and let you know I'm aware of this case and looking in to it from my end. I shall reply to the OP's PM as soon as I have more information.

Thanks

Ian
 
However, I do feel that the casino should consider the refund of the deposits as one of the measurements to fix this situation
Click to expand...

With respect, part of the reason why your problem is getting the better of you is that you are not taking personal responsibility for your actions.

You gambled, and lost.

I am 100% sure that, if you had actually won, and the casino had denied your winnings, you would be posting here that you absolutely should be paid your winnings as you deposited and played fair and square. As I've said, I've seen it all before.

Bottom line is that you either gambled expecting to be paid if you won, or you did not. I don't believe anyone gambles and hopes that WON'T be paid, so that means you deposited and played in good faith....in other words, you believed in good faith that you would be paid any winnings.

You cannot have it both ways.

If you deposits are refunded, it leaves the casino wide open to freerollers IMO.

The best thing you can do is install gamblock, and get to your nearest Gamblers Anonymous meeting and/or gambling counsellor.
 
Self Exclusion is something I feel strongly about.

The UK parliament just voted down an amendment that would create a one stop shop system for self exclusion so all those licensed in the UK (which by 2014 will be pretty much all the legitimate sites) would exclude someone who asked for it with one call/request.

The Gambling Commission consultation that runs until 4 Dec asks no questions on this. The committee looking at the bill voted down a requirement for the Commission to consult on self exclusion. My submission says they should consult and it would be great if others said the same to them (my MP has).

We could have centralised self exclusion within a year if they got on with it - New Jersey has it for their new sites for instance.

Please tell the UKGC that you want one stop shop self exclusion -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Proposed changes to the LCCP is the consultation to say it under - just say they need to consult on this and you want it...deadline 4 Dec.
 
You do have a point Nifty29.

But bottom line is that the casino could simply avoid both possible situations by not letting me reopen the account, the agent was aware of the fact, and here is where the breach was opened to the main problem (besides my gambling problem).

Lets face it, every casino would love not having to follow these rules and we all know why.

You said that in case the casino refunds, it leaves them wide open to free rides.
In my opinion that is not true, just simply don't let players reopen their account before their self exclusion period is due. Period. If they simply keep to this rule, there's no chance for free rides, it's fairly simple to apply it.

Anyhow, putting the refund issue aside, I would like to know at least which actions will be taken to fix this situation and keep their good reputation and image.

EDIT:
Googling for gamblock, didn't know about it, thanks
 
@ the OP - I notice that you posted a month ago that you were playing at Redbet. If you've got a gambling problem and you're serious about not playing, you should really self exclude yourself from ALL casinos and not just some of them.

Also in case you didn't know, any software like Gamblock will block you from visiting websites with any casino related content, including casinomeister.
 
Last edited:
The difference between land-based casinos and bookies SE and online SE is that it's hard to administer land based SE where the operator has hundreds of premises. They would literally have to ask ID from every person coming through the door, and compare it against a SE'd database, Unworkable. In the online area though, this is EXACTLY what they can do and actually do. This is why I think to a certain extent the site you played breached their responsibilities to their LGA by letting you play again, just as you breached your responsibility to yourself by attempting to play again. The thing is, you played to win, and would therefore expect the winnings had you won. Nevertheless, the CS agent who allowed you to play needs a boot up their backside.
 
chayton said:
@ the OP - I notice that you posted a month ago that you were playing at Redbet. If you've got a gambling problem and you're serious about not playing, you should really self exclude yourself from ALL casinos and not just some of them.

Also in case you didn't know, any software like Gamblok will block you from visiting websites with any casino related content, including casinomeister.
Click to expand...

Yes I have, I wasn't registered with them before and I noticed that they were strong in the Scandinavian market, where I'm living now, but the experience only lasted a few days, I am also self excluded at redbet.

EDIT:
yep, I saw that gamblock is paid, I'm currently checking the different versions, but I'll wait until this matter is cleared as I didn't know that casinomeister would be blocked too, thank you for the info
 
funex said:
yep, I saw that gamblock is paid, I'm currently checking the different versions, but I'll wait until this matter is cleared as I didn't know that casinomeister would be blocked too, thank you for the info
Click to expand...

There are a couple others you could check as well, one is called Betfilter, and another called ProblemPoker (just add .com for their websites) Betfilter even has an 8 day free trial so you can see how it works. But don't install it til you're ready because it will block casinomeister as well. At least it should. ProblemPoker has a monthly subscription plan, which may be better for someone who only wants to take a short break.

The problem with this kind of software is that if you have access to more than one computer, you need to buy it for all of them. But if that's what it takes...
 
Last edited:
Butler's Bingo's terms state that if you have a gambling problem, your account will be closed permanently and not reopened.

The OP's opening post says he asked for a five year exclusion, which would lead me to believe the reason for the account self-exclusion was not made clear. If when making his request for self-exclusion he did not state it was due to a gambling problem or addiction, he should not be entitled to any sort of refund or compensation. If he did state is was for gambling addiction, then losses should be refunded IMO.

Based upon what happened in this thread https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/winnings-confiscated-deposit-refunded.50619/, Butler's would have confiscated winnings if the self-exclusion was for problem gambling.

This case will depend on how and why the OP asked for the exclusion in the first place.

I do think going forward the casino should look at how they re-open accounts. I suggest at minimum it needs to be done via email and require a three day cooling off period before the account is re-opened.
 
Jasminebed, thank you for pointing out that thread.

Let me quote IanO:

 
Checking my mails exchanged with support I found this:


I remember being asked on livechat to send an email requesting to be self-excluded,
but I honestly do not remember how exactly the conversation was, but I would say I wasn't asked for the reason for my self exclusion.
If so, should the player be aware of the importance of stating the reason without being asked for it?

Then again, I honestly cannot remember the details of the conversation.
 
Given the earlier case, I think Funex's name should be searched with the data processor as well. The initial confiscation in the other case was based on the player's being in the processor's database for gambling problems as relayed to another casino.

The OP's mail requesting exclusion for a period of 5 years states no reason. The casino will still have records of chat logs I would expect.
 
Jasminebed said:
Given the earlier case, I think Funex's name should be searched with the data processor as well. The initial confiscation in the other case was based on the player's being in the processor's database for gambling problems as relayed to another casino.

The OP's mail requesting exclusion for a period of 5 years states no reason. The casino will still have records of chat logs I would expect.
Click to expand...


The reason is irrelevant. In casinospeak, the very reason for self-exclusion is problem gambling, indeed the very term SE always gets found in their 'responsible gaming' terms. Shutting your account is different - you can reopen it upon request. SE is exactly what it says on the tin. EXCLUSION from all gambling on that site for a specified period. The casino is at fault for allowing the OP to get through the SE. We know the OP had the mindset that night to damage himself, but the casino should NOT have assisted him. That made the whole SE status pointless.
 
dunover said:
The reason is irrelevant. In casinospeak, the very reason for self-exclusion is problem gambling, indeed the very term SE always gets found in their 'responsible gaming' terms. Shutting your account is different - you can reopen it upon request. SE is exactly what it says on the tin. EXCLUSION from all gambling on that site for a specified period. The casino is at fault for allowing the OP to get through the SE. We know the OP had the mindset that night to damage himself, but the casino should NOT have assisted him. That made the whole SE status pointless.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, addiction is a very powerful thing, the OP at one point had the clarity to address this, got weak, this should be cut and dry, the casino is responsible.
 
me_and_ed said:
I couldn't agree more, addiction is a very powerful thing, the OP at one point had the clarity to address this, got weak, this should be cut and dry, the casino is responsible.
Click to expand...

Yes. BOTH the player and the casino have erred here. One could not have erred without the other though. 50-50 situation.
 
dunover said:
Yes. BOTH the player and the casino have erred here. One could not have erred without the other though. 50-50 situation.
Click to expand...

If someone knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation and the incompetent ambulance driver take the wrong turn and isn't there in time to save his ass, is the hospital 50% responsible for the guy's death?
 
I may take a little heat for this but...

In situations like this I feel that, yes the casino should refund the deposit if the player loses and yes they should pay the player if the player wins. I always feel the parties who make the rules must be held to at least the same standard, or higher, as those who the rules are imposed upon.

When a player plays at a given casino they are expected to follow the rules to the letter or be subject to winnings confiscation, expulsion, or blacklisting.

For me, the bottom line is if these casinos are going to offer this service (SE), for whatever the reason given by the player, they must enforce it.
 
Balthazar said:
If someone knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation and the incompetent ambulance driver take the wrong turn and isn't there in time to save his ass, is the hospital 50% responsible for the guy's death?
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase that:

If a bungee jumping company gets a client that wants to jump from a bridge 200 meter high with a rope tied to his foot, and both knowingly of the dangerous situation, allow this to happen, then yes.. both are responsible.
 
Balthazar said:
If someone knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation and the incompetent ambulance driver take the wrong turn and isn't there in time to save his ass, is the hospital 50% responsible for the guy's death?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes in this country the Ambulance service would be partly guilty.
 

I know you mean well here, but this policy would result in masses of players trying it on with in effect a no-lose gamble. This would make the player no better than rogue casinos that operate on a no-lose basis by taking deposits and keeping them if a player loses while finding excuses to refund only the deposit if the player wins.
The policy should follow GC guidelines, neutralizing accounts without paying winnings and not taking the deposits.
 
funex said:
Anyhow, putting the refund issue aside, I would like to know at least which actions will be taken to fix this situation and keep their good reputation and image.
Click to expand...

They still have a good reputation. One mistake (if we are taking sides) by one CSR doesn't destroy the reputation of an entire company built over a span of time. If that was the case I wouldn't have ate at McDonalds yesterday.

On a side note as we wait to see what Ian says: Something rings shady in your quoted statement. The contrast between the tone of your OP, and that statement is startling. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. I wonder if they stated they will be sure not to reopen any SE accounts for any reason, would you be happy, or if by "which actions," you are referring to some form of compensation for you? I'm curious what actions would please you if you're not talking about anything given to yourself.

Unless it's all automated, and the locks unable to be removed, I see no other way to insure this from happening again (in my limited thinking of course), thus I don't really see how them saying "it won't happen again" will satisfy you or anyone for that matter. Which leads me back to the thinking.....you want something.
 
In terms of who is responsible for what portion of what, and the final outcome I think it's important to wait on Ian's response / research. It is extremely important to know what was said in all correspondence, not just what the OP presents to us.

I know for many big business is always wrong...In this case we know a rep is looking into it, might as well wait before casting.
 
Cleveland said:
In terms of who is responsible for what portion of what, and the final outcome I think it's important to wait on Ian's response / research. It is extremely important to know what was said in all correspondence, not just what the OP presents to us.

I know for many big business is always wrong...In this case we know a rep is looking into it, might as well wait before casting.
Click to expand...

You are right.
As I said putting the refund part aside, I would be happy that other players struggling with gambling, on a weaker moment wouldn't have it so easy as I did to get back gambling, not on a accredited house at Casinomeister at least.
I have to thank Casinomeister for helping me to solve other issues in the past, and I would like for it to continuing doing so to other players.

As for the "wanting something"
To be honest, I do admit that I want something and that something would be to get my deposits back and keep my self exclusion period till it's due and continue the struggle.

I'll wait for IanO contact regarding this issue and keep you updated, thank you all for your participation.
 
We can go round in circles here indefinitely until the site makes a decision. One last comment I will make is that we are ALL aware of how we should thoroughly read casino T&C's - woe betide us if we don't. The terms probably state (as they do on many sites) that you should not attempt to play or open another account when barred for any reason, whether by them for any reason or yourself for SE reasons. To this end the OP broke the terms.
The casino will ALSO have terms it should follow laid down by it's LA or Gaming Commission which oblige it to enforce responsible gaming measures should the player request them, and to have the measures available. Whether these terms state play at existing or new accounts by a SE'd player should be neutralized (like I believe the UKGC does) or not will depend on the region.
The player has broken the casino terms almost certainly although they shouldn't have been allowed to and the CS error means the casino has almost certainly breached it's LA terms too.

Disreputable sites love problem gamers as they know it's likely they'll binge-gamble and play until extinction of funds. This particular site doesn't come into that category, and I know it's a chicken-and-egg question but ultimately the site failed the player, not by intent but by weak CS.
 

I kind of agree with you, but as others have said, it leaves the casino open for freerolling. On the other hand, if the casino gets away with it, it kind of gives them a incentive to be lenient when it comes to these kind of rules. IMO a fair thing would be to pay some of the deposit back to the player, and give the rest to a charity that deals with problem gamblers or so.
 
Hi Funex/All,

sorry I could not get a final answer on this today but I am waiting to speak with one more person here before I respond. Thanks for your patience.

Ian
 
It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that the OP knew exactly what they were doing when they deposited at BB.

Remember, they tried it on at many OTHER accredited casinos first.

The OPs responses lead me to believe that this was their plan all along I.e. try and sneak past some CS agent at an accredited casino, post a complaint wanting their money if they win and are denied, or posting a complaint to get their money BACK if they lose.

If this was NOT the case, then why deliberately choose to attempt play at every casino they've EXCLUDED from rather than some that they haven't or some newly accredited casinos?

Sorry, but it's all just too convenient.

Funex, you might be a nice person, but what you're doing stinks like a pole cat.
 

This is a very serious accusation, Nifty! Whether you are right or wrong, you can never proove that. If you call it convenient to deposit and ask casinos to close accounts (self exclusion for 2-5 years) years back just to begin some "raid" now I wonder if he couldn't find an easier way from the beginning.

I do not like your post, even if I see what you mean.
 

Sorry but I find that accusation quite offensive.

As I said on my first post, I contacted several casinos and asked if my self exclusion period was due, as I just wanted to play a bit again on an accredited casino where I had all the documentation verified so I don't have to go through that hassle again, that was mainly it.
I have had so many accounts with so many casinos that I couldn't remember when and for how long I had asked to be self excluded.
I was going through the list of accredited casinos and checking with them the status on my account.

The rest were just consequences, please do not make those accusations, you could verify with IanO or any casino rep where I have an account, that I haven't had any issues whatsover with any house, besides a technical one with nordicbet and a self exclusion with crazyvegas.

Furthermore, I have a set limit of 10€ per month on Betsafe, NordicBet and Betsson, paddypower which were used that day,
I simply just got weak and wanted to play, with no second intentions, please do understand that.

Edit: spending 2000 usd on that day doesnt seems to be a wise move part of the agenda you accuse me of, it was just ilness and stupidity
 
Last edited:

Which begs the question, once you inveigled your way back into that casino, why did you not it the deposit limit button BEFORE playing?
 
dunover said:
Which begs the question, once you inveigled your way back into that casino, why did you not it the deposit limit button BEFORE playing?
Click to expand...

Good question, I don't know..

I don't even think that is possible to set it automatically with the house software, for casino games, only for Bingo I think, but I might be wrong.

Anyhow, I was just blinded for the urge to play and you never think when you start that you will spend that much.. untill you hit rockbottom.
Only at few houses I have deposit limits, most of them I'm just self excluded.
 
funex said:
Good question, I don't know..

I don't even think that is possible to set it automatically with the house software, for casino games, only for Bingo I think, but I might be wrong.

Anyhow, I was just blinded for the urge to play and you never think when you start that you will spend that much.. untill you hit rockbottom.
Only at few houses I have deposit limits, most of them I'm just self excluded.
Click to expand...

Have you taken other steps to deal with this issue other than setting this SEs at each casino? The reason I ask is because no matter the outcome in this case you will be right back where you started and still able to gamble (somewhere). Honestly I would rather see you not paid in this case in hopes that the stinging you feel from all of this will perhaps sink a bit deeper and induce a change. It could well cost you a lot more in the long run if not. Saying "hot" doesn't work all the time....some people need to be burned.
 
Cleveland said:
Have you taken other steps to deal with this issue other than setting this SEs at each casino? The reason I ask is because no matter the outcome in this case you will be right back where you started and still able to gamble (somewhere). Honestly I would rather see you not paid in this case in hopes that the stinging you feel from all of this will perhaps sink a bit deeper and induce a change. It could well cost you a lot more in the long run if not. Saying "hot" doesn't work all the time....some people need to be burned.
Click to expand...

I did take same small steps, cancelled a virtual prepaid card service associated to my bank account, destroyed some credit cards, self excluded from casinos, avoided going to land casinos, etc..
Last yeear I moved to a new city and country, they don't have any casinos around here, only blackjack tables in Pubs and I'm not a big fan, thats a plus.

Although, with Internet.. if you have a gambling problem, you're never safe, you're always bombarded, even the bloody TV channels in Sweden show casino and betting sites advertisements all the time.

Someone gave me the hint to start using Gamblock, I am actually considering this as soon as this thread reaches to a conclusion.
 
I'm afraid I'm with Celaveland on this one - while casinos should honour an account block, much like driving, it's a privilege not a right, and returning your funds doesn't much discourage you from depositing again.

As to gamblock, why wait til the thread's over? It could continue on as other players might still read it, and other members chime in - if youre serious, just do it now

As well, since you came to say what you wanted, and the rep is already looking into your account, you should have Bryan lock you out of the forum, all but for the help page, as participating in a gambling forum is contrary to helping you stop - the rep can still pm you
 
I would seriously look into Gamblock. Seems like this has happened before:
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forum...selfexclusion-period-incompetent-agent.51668/

And it will happen again. Please check out the Quit Gambling page - hopefully you can use some of these techniques to either totally quit or at least cut down a little.
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/quit-gambling/

I'm moving your account into the "Quit Gambling" user group so that you can maintain your membership, but you should be able to access any gambling related threads or screenshots. :D
 
dionysus said:
As well, since you came to say what you wanted, and the rep is already looking into your account, you should have Bryan lock you out of the forum, all but for the help page, as participating in a gambling forum is contrary to helping you stop - the rep can still pm you
Click to expand...

oh well, done already lol
 

lol, hopefully that's 'shouldn't'
 
Casinomeister said:
I would seriously look into Gamblock. Seems like this has happened before:
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forum...selfexclusion-period-incompetent-agent.51668/
Click to expand...

Ok that does change a lot. I can only guess you knew the likely hood of being paid would be high as you have been through this before, and the casino is a reputable one. I know we don't have the reps side yet, but from that thread....I do feel Nifty hit the nail on the head in this one.

Either way I can't see this ending good. Paid or not.
 

This has really pissed me off. There were some of you being harsh on Nifty for his last post, which I also thought harsh. Turns out he was right. I have spent time on several posts helping support this OP and gently encourage a positive outcome, when CM then tells us he has done this before. The bloke may have a problem, but is also an OPPORTUNIST and clearly (based on VPL's correct and fair treatment before) tries to exploit the ignorance of CS after SE and when he does so bets big amounts, knowing that they could win him big amounts or if not he can come here and play the rule book for sympathy and a refund.
Those of you who often comment on my, and especially Nifty's cynicism, would do well to refer back to this thread. OP, you have taken advantage of people's sympathy here. Not cool.
And I thank CM for stopping myself and others from further making fools of ourselves on this thread.
Over and out.:mad::mad::mad:
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

maxd
Self-Exclusion - what progress in recent years?
Replies
1
Views
280
dunover
dunover
maxd
WARNING Gamblor.io ignoring self-exclusion requests and player complaints
Replies
1
Views
1K
dunover
dunover
B
Gamesys - Failed Self Exclusion
Replies
25
Views
2K
essuk
E
D
Anyway to get around self exclusion?
Replies
7
Views
470
Avernite
A
L
5 year Self-exclusion refund?
Replies
3
Views
593
coolrunnings19
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top