Gamdom - Self Exclusion NOT Honoured

[alkalineph13]

gm

I permanently self-excluded from Gamdom and asked for a lifetime ban, which was later done and confirmed via email. (https://imgur.com/a/uD6Q0kf) For background, I am a VIP player with mid to high 6 figure losses and was mostly in contact with a VIP host not via email/support.

Around a month after being banned I reached asking whether there was a birthday bonus available despite the ban - answer was no, but VIP Host said I could use a different account to claim it and even guided through KYC process (same KYC details as in the account that was banned) and getting VIP status etc, which was done as an "exception" due to my wager (so it's clearly not something casino rep should do if done as an exceptino) - (https://imgur.com/a/7GxVNy1)

Long story short, after the birthday bonus and other bonuses that were granted on the new account I lost more funds. The VIP Team was aware of me having multiple accounts and even after gambling after permanent ban request instead of honouring it I was offered deposit bonuses. All of those accounts were shared in the VIP chat and they all had requested self-exclusion at one point in time as well. VIP Host himself acknowledged the fault "I agree that a permanent ban should always be handled as a full stop and helping on another account isn’t aligned with responsible gambling. I get what you mean and that’s fair" (https://imgur.com/a/j0SJHH5)

I wouldn't have shared this and tried to resolve in good faith if even after acknowledging RG violations instead of any sort of compensation or even an apology I was granted "something in terms of a bonus as a goodwill gesture in the future, but it isn’t available at the moment" . Presumably available after gambling more lmao

Ofc I am not removing responsibility from myself for gambling in the first place but goal here is to share this a cautionary tale for Gamdom players and "exceptions" made for VIPs.

[acroman08]

I'm sorry, but they didn't say you could use another account to claim the bonus(at least based on the screenshot you shared), but they should also not have allowed you to play in the casino, too.

Anyway, a lot of gamblers have posted here in the forum complaining about casinos not honoring the self-exclusion, but I am curious, would you have been here posting this if you won?

[alkalineph13]

I'm sorry, but they didn't say you could use another account to claim the bonus(at least based on the screenshot you shared), but they should also not have allowed you to play in the casino, too.

Anyway, a lot of gamblers have posted here in the forum complaining about casinos not honoring the self-exclusion, but I am curious, would you have been here posting this if you won?

https://imgur.com/a/a72QOt3 longer convo where it's clear that bonus was issues and approved (and the bonus had to be issued manually either way so wouldn't be possible if it wasn't approved). Whether I won or lost doesn't matter, I am aware how gambling works and the goal of this post was to show predatory practice presented as an "exception" for a high roller.   

[acroman08]

https://imgur.com/a/a72QOt3 longer convo where it's clear that bonus was issues and approved (and the bonus had to be issued manually either way so wouldn't be possible if it wasn't approved). Whether I won or lost doesn't matter, I am aware how gambling works and the goal of this post was to show predatory practice presented as an "exception" for a high roller.   

I think you misunderstood what I said. What I meant is that they are not the ones who gave the idea that you should create or use an old account to claim the bonus. They told you they are not giving out a birthday bonus to a banned account, and you said to them, "I found an old account, and thought would be a good opportunity to try keno", which then they allow you to do KYC verification to be able to play in the casino. That's why I also said that the casino should not have allowed you to play in the casino.

[Haunebu]

Predatory practice or unethical tactics indeed based on the screens that you shared. Am hardly surprised though since most crypto gambling sites that offer these self exclusion protocols ensure them in a loose manner leaving a greater degree of responsibility on players.

It's pretty evident that you are a whale and they just lost a valuable customer. Useful information!

[Slow death]

I'm sorry, but they didn't say you could use another account to claim the bonus(at least based on the screenshot you shared), but they should also not have allowed you to play in the casino, too.

Anyway, a lot of gamblers have posted here in the forum complaining about casinos not honoring the self-exclusion, but I am curious, would you have been here posting this if you won?

https://imgur.com/a/a72QOt3 longer convo where it's clear that bonus was issues and approved (and the bonus had to be issued manually either way so wouldn't be possible if it wasn't approved). Whether I won or lost doesn't matter, I am aware how gambling works and the goal of this post was to show predatory practice presented as an "exception" for a high roller.  

Probably if you had won a lot of money with the bonus they gave you after your self-exclusion you wouldn't make this post. The biggest problem for people addicted to something has always been not admitting that they are the main culprit and distancing themselves early from the thing that is causing their addiction. It's true that casinos need to comply with the laws and their Terms of Service. But the person who should be the first to distance themselves from gambling when they become addicted is the gambler.

[henry_of_skalitz]

Yep, classic.

I think that you being the VIP played its part here, but they should of just said - nah man, not today. go chill, you have a lifetime for it - In an official manner.

[Eternad]

I don’t like victim blaming but on this case you are the one who initiated to seek a birthday bonus which they do compromise and make exemption just because you are a valuable customer for them.

You have a chance to make profit using that bonus and the only problem now is because you lose that’s why you are playing victim.

Casino has fault here for making an exemption in your case but we as a player have the responsibility to become responsible on our own gambling.

[Lida93]

So if I understand you correctly, you were allowed to create multiple accounts even knowing you had requested for a permanent self exclusion from your very first account, if which the casino had honoured. Hmmm...

The question that sparks a curiosity now is this, do gammon casino terms of service allows for multiple accounts for all it users in their casino? If no, then am assuming they just took advantage of your gambling addiction problem for a high roller that you are.  Can't blame them more than I blame you for not being a responsible gambler.

[Hispo]

Is not that casino regulated or does not have a valid license? This is the kind of stuff I would report to their license issuer so they get called out and perhaps they could get fined for nor following their own terms of service.

Self-exclusion is something one should not messed with by casinos, sometimes it is the only protection people who are addicted to gambling have in order to try to get their life back on track, if a casino does not honor such mechanisms, then they are actively hurting their gamblers, those who are the most vulnerable.

I would advice you to take your case with whoever issued their license and present your case to them.

[un_rank]

They should update their terms of self exclusion. If someone requests to be permanently excluded they should not be allowed to chat with support after they have withdrawn all their funds. There is no reason for someone who should never be using a service again to talk with the service provider.

This is all on Gamdom for me. They clearly said that the request will not be lifted even if you change your mind. It should not matter if it is another account, the user behind the screen is banned and should never be allowed back no matter how profitable their addiction is to the casino. If the user was confident in their self control they would not have requested to be excluded

- Jay-