The self exclusion act is super annoying.......

[Casinorep]

In the UK....I wish the operators with deep pockets lobby (or if they already are to be successful) in lifting this clause, because it really dampens overall industry profits..

[AntonL]

How does the UK self exclusion act work?

I mean, the way I look at it, it really is there to block players with actual problems from gambling (in some jurisdictions).
But if set up in a bad way, then yes, it can be annoying.

But if this is annoying purely because of profits going down, then I see a bigger problem here.

But really, I don´t know how the self exclusion is setup in the UK.

[pokeraussie]

Just wow this thread leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is all about the mighty $$$ isn't it Casinorep.

[universal4]

I tend to agree AntonL,

Because we are in this industry it is difficult to look at the situation objectively but we really need to.

If in fact these kinds of measures are properly designed and help those with problems, then we should welcome it.

Rick
Universal4

[-Shay-]

A dampening of industry profit is not a basis to overturn a law that in theory protects players from themselves.

[pokeraussie]

In fact, you could say this is one of the advantages of online gambling. It is much easier for online operators to self exclude problem gamblers. Self exclusion at land-based gambling venues is a joke.

[Casinorep]

The way I see it is that when a consumer protection clause such as this exists, it's a double edged sword that with an often sharper one side, i.e. It attracts abuse.

Imagine people buying things and then charge backs on their credit cards say to the tune of 30-40%. Now will retailers consider doing something about this?

But because it's gambling, there seems to be a moral support to this to "protect players ". How ironic.

[Casinorep]

Just wow this thread leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is all about the mighty $$$ isn't it Casinorep.

Of course! Isn't that the whole point?

[pokeraussie]

Of course! Isn't that the whole point?

$$$ means nothing if you can't sleep at night.

[thebookiesoffers]

Of course! Isn't that the whole point?

It is to a certain extent, we all want people to lose overall but not to the extent where it hurts people and effects their lives. In the uk we are blessed by having quite a lot of freedom when it comes to gambling, we need to protect it by being about right and making sure we help people with problems. Otherwise we'll get the loons trying to ban it or restrict it more

just look at the **** they go on about FOBT's, the crack cocaine of the high street etc etc etc, even people on our side crying about them, failing to see you can do as much or more damage on your computer without even going to the bookies

[F-L-C]

It is annoying but I am sure being addicted to gambling is more "annoying"

[Syndicate]

In the UK....I wish the operators with deep pockets lobby (or if they already are to be successful) in lifting this clause, because it really dampens overall industry profits..

Yes - At the same time it could also fix the UK bookmakers profits and increase the share price. Maybe add a different ''clause'' - winners not welcome here!!

But on a serious note - You have to take some social responsibility and not think the worlds all about memememememememe!

[Triple7]

I don't know much about how things work in the UK, but I've red you're able to ask self exclusion at online casino's, who have to respect this, people that can download casino block software and online casino's that have to pay deposits back if they let self excluded players deposit and play.

I think if a player asked for self exclusion, as an online casino you should not let him play. If you do so and he wants his money back, than they cannot complain they have to give it back. They had to respect self exclusion.

[Mikew]

I think self-exclusion in the UK is kind of annoying up to some point. I have to agree here with @Casinorep and @AntonL on different points and here is why.

Self exclusion is a really good and useful option when it is used by players with gambling addiction or/and to protect those that really need this features whatever their situation.

However, I had learned that this feature is actually being abused by players and mostly used by those who get frustrated after loosing their deposit or for not having received a free offer even if the casino doesn't actually promote one.
In that case it gets annoying, because once a player self-exclude himself for such reasons, without knowing it, he actually blocks himself from accessing any other casino running under that network, like Everymatrix for example.

Heard few stories when a player managed to deposit at a casino, however, had month ago self-excluded himself from another casino within this network, and then after loosing his deposit, requested a cashback.
For some I am sure it could be done without knowing the fact, but then again, other players are starting to abuse this privilege of them and we happened to have sent 3 players with the exact scenario to a casino and got a warning from their management as they started to think that we were behind the story. From this side it can get super annoying.

[GCG]

Play smart (player) & act responsibly (player and operator).
If conditions are met the rules of engagement apply.
Second do not brake the rules.
Third if the rules hurt your profit then that is too bad, players first affiliates/operators second.

[Flapper]

Hi,

i stumbled across this thread whilst researching the new self exclusion legislation. I am a recovering gambling addict and would be very interested in signing up to the list, do any of you know where I can find out more information?

I must say say the sentiment of most of the above posts is disgusting. When challenged those in the industry are quick to point out that the industry does not profit from problem gamblers yet reading the above posts shows people who work in the industry are greedy and have little or no regard for the well being of it's customers.

Of course blanket self exclusion is a positive thing. It's no good promoting responsible gambling then allowing problem gamblers who have excluded to gamble again only to state 'it's the users responsibility to keep away'. The industry has grown to astronomical levels and with this growth comes additional responsibility. This will be the first of many 'annoying' changes that will happen over the next few years.

profit is important for a business, I get that but acting responsibly is also high on the list, no one should seek to profit from problem gamblers.

As as for the comment about FOBT's I would like to respectfully point out that online access is easier to legislate and if blanket authority is agreed the main threat to problem gamblers will become FOBTs in the bookies. I personally feel that those machines are not as transparent as the industry would like us to believe and have been designed to be addictive, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong?

[Triple7]

This will be the first of many 'annoying' changes that will happen over the next few years.

True this. In my opinion it would also be better if the industry put their energy in taking it up against hackers, spammers, etc instead of trying to lobby to take profit out of people that have themself not under control if it's about gambling.

I am sure that for affiliates this spammers and hackers are damaging more than that few players that are asking for self exclusion.

[Casinorep]

I think self-exclusion in the UK is kind of annoying up to some point. I have to agree here with @Casinorep and @AntonL on different points and here is why.

Self exclusion is a really good and useful option when it is used by players with gambling addiction or/and to protect those that really need this features whatever their situation.

However, I had learned that this feature is actually being abused by players and mostly used by those who get frustrated after loosing their deposit or for not having received a free offer even if the casino doesn't actually promote one.
In that case it gets annoying, because once a player self-exclude himself for such reasons, without knowing it, he actually blocks himself from accessing any other casino running under that network, like Everymatrix for example.

Heard few stories when a player managed to deposit at a casino, however, had month ago self-excluded himself from another casino within this network, and then after loosing his deposit, requested a cashback.
For some I am sure it could be done without knowing the fact, but then again, other players are starting to abuse this privilege of them and we happened to have sent 3 players with the exact scenario to a casino and got a warning from their management as they started to think that we were behind the story. From this side it can get super annoying.

Couldn't put it better myself.

[Muppet]

I'm disgusted at this thread. This law is aimed at helping people with an addiction problem. It would be better if every jurisdiction in the world had such regulation. I could not care less if it cuts into your profits casinorep. Poor diddums.

This has to be the most selfish thing I have ever read on these boards. And that is saying something.

[Sherlock]

I am rather annoyed by the overall hypocricy that touched even affiliates. Like if gambling can be fun, when done in control. Gambling is about losing the control. That is why people gamble. The real money is made by whales. All the campaigns like when the fun stops are pure joke and in fact, part of the marketing. Exactly the same like when multinational corporations squeezing blood from 3rd world workers throw away few pennies to charity that pretends help to the 3rd world.

Amazingly I sleep quite well even with the bloody money that we all make from people that are desperate enough that choose to gamble.

This selfexcluding legislative is well designed to be impotent. It is probably fine to have it, because society wants to see only one dullact after another. But it is crazy to think it might really change something. It is just another political act. Nothing more, nothing less.