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.
Printable View
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.
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)?
***, 40% is really suspicious!
I know it is great move to have a chance to exclude yourself, but 40%?? WTF
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCG
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GCG
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.
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.
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.
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 slots-guide.eu
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casinorep
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.