Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    RacingJim is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,871
    Thanks
    880
    Thanked 1,362 Times in 841 Posts

    Default

    40% also seems very high to me, I guess we'd need stats off a number of different operators to know if anything untoward is happening though.

  2. #22
    GCG
    GCG is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    February 2009
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    1,249
    Thanks
    291
    Thanked 759 Times in 418 Posts

    Default

    again how does this self exclusion procedure work from the operators side after the player pushed the button.

    IP exclusion etc ? Does it work for all casinos under the same umbrella (seems stupid if not, as inactive accounts will still be contacted by retention)?

  3. #23
    Rick Perry is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    June 2015
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Default

    ***, 40% is really suspicious!

    I know it is great move to have a chance to exclude yourself, but 40%?? WTF

  4. #24
    Renee's Avatar
    Renee is offline Sponsor Affiliate Program
    Join Date
    August 2005
    Posts
    9,065
    Blog Entries
    6
    Thanks
    6,631
    Thanked 3,525 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GCG View Post
    This was before they needed the UK license.

    How does this work ? blocked by their IP, contact details ?
    Quote Originally Posted by GCG View Post
    again how does this self exclusion procedure work from the operators side after the player pushed the button.

    IP exclusion etc ? Does it work for all casinos under the same umbrella (seems stupid if not, as inactive accounts will still be contacted by retention)?
    Yes, of course it works on all accounts, however you have to consider that some players will do anything to get around the checks. If they sign up with different details and different email address it's going to be impossible to police it until they go to cash out. There is no way to monitor manually every single account that gets opened.

    Each group has their own way of dealing with RM procedures so I can't speak on behalf of all groups.

    Inactive accounts wouldn't get contacted by retention as it's against the UK license rules.


    I realise 40% seems high, but as I said, it's one click within the casino software and players often click it because they've had a bad run rather than for a gambling problem. The number of people who close their accounts due to a bad run is a lot higher than you'd think. If they just close it for having a bad run through casino support, they can open it again later. With UK self exclusion, they cannot. They have to wait the minimum 6 months. No exceptions.
    __________________
    Renee, Affiliate Program Manager
    http://www.RewardsAffiliates.com
    Affiliate Program for CasinoRewards.com
    Best Affiliate Manager - CAP Awards 2008
    Best Casino Affiliate Manager - CAP Awards 2009
    Best Casino Affiliate Manager - iGB Affiliate Awards 2010

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Renee For This Useful Post:

    GCG (16 September 2015)

  6. #25
    Casino-Matt is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    165
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Self exclusion is a delusion at the moment. Same with those software gambling blockers the companies charge a fortune for.
    Whats stopping an addict simply signing up to a different casino or uninstalling their blocker software.

    Canada has the right idea where you can self exclude from all casinos in that licensing area with one form.

    As affiliates we should be encouraging responsible gambling.

  7. #26
    Casinorep's Avatar
    Casinorep is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2002
    Posts
    941
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 268 Times in 202 Posts

    Default

    Interestingly the players who migrated over to the sports betting section don't self exclude. And I haven't seen any of my sports betting or bingo players self exclude from all of my operators..

    Glad I diversified.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Casinorep For This Useful Post:

    Renee (16 September 2015)

  9. #27
    Renee's Avatar
    Renee is offline Sponsor Affiliate Program
    Join Date
    August 2005
    Posts
    9,065
    Blog Entries
    6
    Thanks
    6,631
    Thanked 3,525 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slots-guide.eu View Post
    Self exclusion is a delusion at the moment. Same with those software gambling blockers the companies charge a fortune for.
    Whats stopping an addict simply signing up to a different casino or uninstalling their blocker software.

    Canada has the right idea where you can self exclude from all casinos in that licensing area with one form.

    As affiliates we should be encouraging responsible gambling.
    You're right, there's nothing stopping an addict from going to another group. There has to come a point where adults need to take responsibility for themselves too, so if they are going from one group to another because they are self excluding, they can hardly blame the casinos for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casinorep View Post
    Interestingly the players who migrated over to the sports betting section don't self exclude. And I haven't seen any of my sports betting or bingo players self exclude from all of my operators..

    Glad I diversified.
    I would expect that the "margins" on sportsbetting are a lot lower. People probably lose less often. I say probably. I really don't know, it's just a guess. So if that's true, there are probably far less people self excluding after being pissed at a bad run than for an actual gambling problem.
    __________________
    Renee, Affiliate Program Manager
    http://www.RewardsAffiliates.com
    Affiliate Program for CasinoRewards.com
    Best Affiliate Manager - CAP Awards 2008
    Best Casino Affiliate Manager - CAP Awards 2009
    Best Casino Affiliate Manager - iGB Affiliate Awards 2010

  10. #28
    -Shay- is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    12,211
    Thanked 3,133 Times in 1,686 Posts

    Default

    We have one program (3 bingo brands, two casino brands) that openly discloses "locked accounts" (they do not say why a player is locked, but they show the player and indicate they've been locked for one reason or the other --- ie - cool off period, exclusion, fraud, etc).

    Since July of this year, we have 18.36% of our players in "locked account" status for one reason or another.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •