BETFURY reopened self excluded account -> more losses, violation of TOS

[Rating Place]

Closing an account is the same as self excluding (the don't make a difference), if you think otherwise I would like to understand your thought process behind that.

I disagree because the terms of service differentiates a self-exclusion account closure vs. a general account closure (as I outlined in my first post), asking the user to specifically state that they are self-excluding when writing the account closure email.

6.11. Should you wish to close your account with us, please send an email from your Registered Email Address to our Customer Support Department via the links on the Website.

That's the exact same procedure as self excluding permanently.

Ah but its not though.

You requested for self exclusion which they obliged

He didn't request a self exclusion though. Per the contents of his email, he only requested an account closure (without specifying he wanted to be self-excluded), and nowhere in the ToS does it say that accounts closed in this manner can't be re-opened.

Self-Exclusion and closing account are the same for all intents and purposes. They can be reopened. Life time Self-Exclusion is different. It can’t be reopened. CGA under new LOK laws.

[nutildah]

Self-Exclusion and closing account are the same for all intents and purposes.

Obviously they are not. For example, when AHOYBRAUSE closed his account, he didn't say anything about closing it because he was addicted to gambling and wanted to stop himself from playing -- he simply didn't like the casino. He could probably change his mind and re-open it at a later date if he wanted. That is the difference.

What I'm looking at here is what BetFury requests when a user is closing their account for the purpose of self-exclusion. It is different than what is requested for a general account closure, and for good reasons.

Life time Self-Exclusion is different. CGA under LOK.

OK so you are contradicting yourself...

[Rating Place]

Self-Exclusion and closing account are the same for all intents and purposes.

Obviously they are not. For example, when AHOYBRAUSE closed his account, he didn't say anything about closing it because he was addicted to gambling and wanted to stop himself from playing -- he simply didn't like the casino. He could probably change his mind and re-open it at a later date if he wanted. That is the difference.

What I'm looking at here is what BetFury requests when a user is closing their account for the purpose of self-exclusion. It is different than what is requested for a general account closure, and for good reasons.

Life time Self-Exclusion is different. CGA under LOK.

OK so you are contradicting yourself...

”Lifetime” is the key word. Everything can be reopened unless it says lifetime. I put the choices of time period in a previous post talking “Cool-Off” and “Self-Exclusion” 1,3,5,10 years or lifetime for Sel-Exclusion. Cool-Off is shorter. It’s in CGA laws.

[nutildah]

”Lifetime” is the key word. Everything can be reopened unless it says lifetime. I put the choices of time period in a previous post talking “Cool-Off” and “Self-Exclusion”. It’s in CGA laws.

Mmmhmm... and what type of self-exclusion do you think OP was talking about? Permanent or temporary?

[Rating Place]

”Lifetime” is the key word. Everything can be reopened unless it says lifetime. I put the choices of time period in a previous post talking “Cool-Off” and “Self-Exclusion”. It’s in CGA laws.

Mmmhmm... and what type of self-exclusion do you think OP was talking about? Permanent or temporary?

we can’t guess because they are different. If lifetime isn’t mentioned, then it can be reopened.

[nutildah]

Mmmhmm... and what type of self-exclusion do you think OP was talking about? Permanent or temporary?

we can’t guess because they are different. If lifetime isn’t mentioned, then it can be reopened.

We don't have to guess because its stated in the first post:

I self excluded with them on July 12th permanently but because I know I still had some small bonuses waiting for me which i wanted to gamble with I asked them to reopen my account.

The problem is OP didn't tell BetFury they wanted a permanent or any other type of self-exclusion. That is literally why a general account closure and an account closure for self-exclusion cannot be treated as the same thing.

[Rating Place]

Mmmhmm... and what type of self-exclusion do you think OP was talking about? Permanent or temporary?

we can’t guess because they are different. If lifetime isn’t mentioned, then it can be reopened.

We don't have to guess because its stated in the first post:

I self excluded with them on July 12th permanently but because I know I still had some small bonuses waiting for me which i wanted to gamble with I asked them to reopen my account.

The problem is OP didn't tell BetFury they wanted a permanent or any other type of self-exclusion. That is literally why a general account closure and an account closure for self-exclusion cannot be treated as the same thing.

They are the same unless he told Betfury permanent or lifetime. Hopefully the OP posts what he originally told Betfury and it says permanent. The law is clear.

Edit- just looked it up. It’s under 9.2 self-exclusion CGA. Version 1 on April 17, 2025.

[yahoo62278]

Are you saying that if they had kept the self exclusion on you would not have looked for another place to gamble? I am betting that you would have made a new account or when to play on another site because as you said, " you have a problem".

I personally don't really think the sites should give you a place to gamble and have to babysit you as well. You are responsible for your own actions. People bitch all the time that they want to be able to spend their money however they want. Internet gambling allows you to do that, but you lost and are looking for a loophole for a refund or something. You can either handle gambling or you can't. Don't blame the site for your decision IMO.

Now some might argue that the site broke their terms if your account was reopened, but I still say sites shouldn't have to babysit irresponsible gamblers.

[Rating Place]

Are you saying that if they had kept the self exclusion on you would not have looked for another place to gamble? I am betting that you would have made a new account or when to play on another site because as you said, " you have a problem".

I personally don't really think the sites should give you a place to gamble and have to babysit you as well. You are responsible for your own actions. People bitch all the time that they want to be able to spend their money however they want. Internet gambling allows you to do that, but you lost and are looking for a loophole for a refund or something. You can either handle gambling or you can't. Don't blame the site for your decision IMO.

Now some might argue that the site broke their terms if your account was reopened, but I still say sites shouldn't have to babysit irresponsible gamblers.

That’s a good point. The book doesn’t have to play babysitter.

In looking over the thread, the OP said he closed his account because he was unsatisfied with the product. He never mentioned gambling problem although we know that’s the case.

[yahoo62278]

Are you saying that if they had kept the self exclusion on you would not have looked for another place to gamble? I am betting that you would have made a new account or when to play on another site because as you said, " you have a problem".

I personally don't really think the sites should give you a place to gamble and have to babysit you as well. You are responsible for your own actions. People bitch all the time that they want to be able to spend their money however they want. Internet gambling allows you to do that, but you lost and are looking for a loophole for a refund or something. You can either handle gambling or you can't. Don't blame the site for your decision IMO.

Now some might argue that the site broke their terms if your account was reopened, but I still say sites shouldn't have to babysit irresponsible gamblers.

That’s a good point. The book doesn’t have to play babysitter.

In looking over the thread, the OP said he closed his account because he was unsatisfied with the product. He never mentioned gambling problem although we know that’s the case.

I have some gambling problem

Just in case you overlooked it.

[nutildah]

They are the same

They are not the same. Its not a matter of opinion so much as understanding basic terms and definitions. During a self-exclusion period (whether temporary or permanent), an account cannot be accessed or re-opened at the request of the player. If a player voluntarily closes their account for any other reason, it can be re-opened and accessed.

Hopefully the OP posts what he originally told Betfury and it says permanent. The law is clear.

He did post it. He never requested a self-exclusion, so the law is irrelevant here. Take a look for yourself:

[Rating Place]

You don’t know if it’s relevant or not. We need to see the first email he sent Betfury to close his account to determine if the law is relevant. Of course succeeding correspondence isn’t going to say gambling problem. The original one may mention gambling problem.

Exclusion periods can expire and the player can ask to be reinstated.

I don’t know  why you want to argue this since it’s not some new concept. Other jurisdictions have the same type of laws. Cooling-Off periods and Self-Exclusion isn’t new. So as I said, in essence they are the same.

[nutildah]

You don’t know if it’s relevant or not. We need to see the first email he sent Betfury to close his account to determine if the law is relevant. Of course succeeding correspondence isn’t going to say gambling problem. The original one may mention gambling problem.

We saw the first line of the original one. If it said anything about requesting a self-exclusion, I'm guessing the OP would have included it in his screenshot.

I don’t know  why you want to argue this since it’s not some new concept. Other jurisdictions have the same type of laws. Cooling-Off periods and Self-Exclusion isn’t new. So as I said, in essence they are the same.

Now you're changing what we were disagreeing about. I never said anything about a "cooling off period."

[Rating Place]

You don’t know if it’s relevant or not. We need to see the first email he sent Betfury to close his account to determine if the law is relevant. Of course succeeding correspondence isn’t going to say gambling problem. The original one may mention gambling problem.

We saw the first line of the original one. If it said anything about requesting a self-exclusion, I'm guessing the OP would have included it in his screenshot.

I don’t know  why you want to argue this since it’s not some new concept. Other jurisdictions have the same type of laws. Cooling-Off periods and Self-Exclusion isn’t new. So as I said, in essence they are the same.

Now you're changing what we were disagreeing about. I never said anything about a "cooling off period."

The second email means nothing. We need the first. You just learned about the rules today and don’t seem to have an understanding of the rules or how to interpret them so I’ll let it go after this.

The tricky part in this case isn’t closed or self-exclusion, it’s that this case doesn’t have a time period for possible reinstatement. Closed can be taken as cooling-off. A time period should be listed for a cooling-off or self-exclusion.

[nutildah]

The second email means nothing. We need the first.

We have the first line of the first, and as I said, if the rest of it said anything about requesting a self-exclusion, I'm sure OP would have included it in the screenshot, since that would be the most relevant form of evidence for his case. It seems that it didn't, regardless:

I simply asked "close my account"

Per BetFury's ToS:

"Just send a message to our Customer Support Department using your Registered Email Address that you wish to SELF-EXCLUDE and this request will take effect within 24 hours from the moment of its receipt."

OP didn't do that, they just said "close my account."

You just learned about the rules today and don’t seem to have an understanding of the rules or how to interpret them so I’ll let it go after this.

You're wrong and your assumptions change nothing. You just keep saying one wrong thing after the other, similar to the quality of your involvement in other threads.

The tricky part in this case isn’t closed or self-exclusion, it’s that this case doesn’t have a time period for possible reinstatement.

You're making things overly complicated for no apparent reason.

[Rating Place]

Like I said, you don’t understand it. Both closed (can be considered cooling-off) and Self-Exclusion have time periods for reinstatement. It doesn’t matter what it’s called. It’s not lifetime unless listed.

[dimonstration]

Like I said, you don’t understand it. Both closed (cooling-off) and Self-Exclusion have time periods for reinstatement. It doesn’t matter what it’s called. It’s not lifetime unless listed.

In addition to this.

The evidence attached on this thread shown the support confirmation for the self exclusion request mentioned in the end that the account will suffer a temporary ban once they break the self exclusion ToS which means the account requested temporary self exclusion and not permanent self exclusion.

I do request permanent self exclusion on many casino. Usually support will just inform that account is already close and cannot be re-open again.

This user is trying to use this self exclusion as an insurance to claim back his losses.

[Rating Place]

Like I said, you don’t understand it. Both closed (cooling-off) and Self-Exclusion have time periods for reinstatement. It doesn’t matter what it’s called. It’s not lifetime unless listed.

In addition to this.

The evidence attached on this thread shown the support confirmation for the self exclusion request mentioned in the end that the account will suffer a temporary ban once they break the self exclusion ToS which means the account requested temporary self exclusion and not permanent self exclusion.

I do request permanent self exclusion on many casino. Usually support will just inform that account is already close and cannot be re-open again.

This user is trying to use this self exclusion as an insurance to claim back his losses.

This is the exact same way that I see it. I try to be on the player’s side but can’t do it here.

[nutildah]

Like I said, you don’t understand it. Both closed (can be considered cooling-off) and Self-Exclusion have time periods for reinstatement. It doesn’t matter what it’s called. It’s not lifetime unless listed.

This has nothing to do with anything. At no point did OP say they had been temporarily self-excluded in the past.

You keep changing the argument so you can "win", even though ultimately we are both on the same side.  

Getting game-protect level vibes from you at the this point. Your poor reading comprehension and lack of humility is wasting everybody's time.

The evidence attached on this thread shown the support confirmation for the self exclusion request mentioned in the end that the account will suffer a temporary ban once they break the self exclusion ToS which means the account requested temporary self exclusion and not permanent self exclusion.

It doesn't say that. Please re-read the screenshot, its a standard account closure notice.

[Rating Place]

Just stop already. Closing account and then asking for it back is a form of temporary exclusion.