 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Please help me! Banned again on Betonline for mentioning gambler's anonymous.
I have never attended a GA meeting in my life, however in a conversation with an operative on the betonline team I was told that my account was permanently closed with no possibility to reopen. Will you please offer assistance? I have never been apart of GA, I only mentioned GA because I was exaggerating during the call. Please help me get my account reinstated. Thank you in advance.
What did you say exactly?
UK gambling commission advice to their books is to close any account where the person even says stuff like "I need this money to pay rent urgently".
I live in the US and said nothing of the sort.
Interesting. Lots of other books out there though.
I realized that. Just mentioning how UK regulator responds. As they are the model for this responsible gambling stuff.Originally Posted by jayee
What did you say?
And is the not the first time they have done it?
Optional we know part of story left out
Yeah, give us the juicy details on how the conversation occurred where you dropped GA.
I casually drop GA in my normal everyday conversations. When I am at the grocery store, I might say to the cashier "if the price of milk keeps going up, I may have to contact GA."
If you say something about GA to one of these books, it is almost an automatic "exclusion request". I'd say you are done.
maybe it was something along these line, small slip up?
Dayam, that's a bit on the overreach.
How can they make gambling, deposits, withdrawals, etc all legal and then give themselves the chance to pull the plug based on some remarks some guy who is pissed he's not getting paid blurts out over the internet.
Fawk.
Books are not supposed to knowingly take money from anyone they suspect cant afford to lose it basically.
There is a pretty constant stream of complaints from UK players asking for losses to be refunded as they self excluded but then got back in. Because the UKGC implied that was what should happen a few years back. (it's not what happens. the book gets penalized)
So if anyone mentions GA to a book rep there, there is a chance they will be back complaining for losses to be refunded if they don't lock them out. And then they can get hit with large fines.
That's kind of exactly my point. You can't force it on the player, they have to do it themselves.
So when they self exclude, how in the hell are they getting back in?
That's just wrong, and I agree it should be penalized. They shouldn't have to judge by words being used there, they should honor there side of the seld exclude "contract" and this might not even be an issue.
See what I'm saying?
That's just crazy to me.
There is an option to self exclude and for a book to push that button on somebody who didn't pull the trigger themselves (or explicitly tell them too), then WTF?
Just as bad as letting an already self excluded account back in.
This gray area must drive you nuts Opti. Especially if you've had to negotiate or navigate any of these on behalf of the players.
It's driving me nuts thinking about it. Source of Funds, suspect you can't afford, such tough areas.
It is the world we live, so I get it.
Yeah, that's the same logic that feeds the stream of people asking for it. Not arguing whats right, just explaining what the UK system has grown in to, as it leads the world. Usually the person enters slightly different info or moved and not picked up immediately. Guy loses his 500 pounds has the account shut down next day and wants it refunded. Books weren't careful really for a long time and many got big fines for allowing self excluded back, or not booting people when they told CS they were in financial trouble. Now they are super sensitive about it.
|
|
I can see how the situation leads them to get sensitive.
Consumer protection, expecially in America, is a big thing, and regulators will act.
Books took a big risk letting the self exluded back in, the snowball effect they might not have seen...lol.
I guess at least with responsible gambling guidelines there is no way to twist the system into an advantage for the book like KYC has been used.
And yes, the UK people asking for help with that are kind of frustrating to deal with. They often already know they aren't getting a refund and just want empathy and someone to agree it's not their fault. Find it a bit tiring after the 100th person. Especially when maybe 25% of them know they are just trying to play the system.
|
|
Actually, the books can take advantage of responsible gambling rules. And it's a thing that really irks me about the regulation system.
Just about all the big euro bookmakers hardly advertize about how great it is to win anymore. Majority of ads talk about features like setting betting limits and taking time outs and self exclusion.
No one but a problem gambler is attracted by features like that. It's blatantly advertising directly at the people they are meant to exclude.
And why does no regulator object to that?!? but dick around with stupid rules that see this game of sneaking back in and making claims happen. I guess the news stories about books being fined are probably great advertising too as well.
I'd love to see the marketing research on this.
lol
very interesting discussion here
i had no idea someone would be banned just for talking about gambler's anonymous or saying they had a problem
and yes i have found it weird that books say "gamble responsibly" just like beer commercials say "drink responsibly"... why in the world would a sportsbook want you to only lose $10 instead of $10,000 or a beer company want you to drink 1 beer instead of 10 lol
|
|
Being from the UK myself, I can confirm this. Books have been known to exclude winning or sharp players under the guise of "responsible gambling". They see a player winning big, then suspend the account and make the player jump through hoops to prove they could afford to be betting that much in the first place. More often than not, they then limit the account heavily, or just ban then altogether.
Holy cow. That's awful.
Is that responsible gambling or anti-money laundering?
The NJ books are funny. They have a pop-up when you reach 2,500 in deposits.
"Like Acknowledge that you don't have a gamble problem, cause you deposited 2,500"
I really need an answer to this
I guess the again is in reference tho this —-> https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...ly-closed.htmlI really need an answer to this
I didn’t realize it was the same guy but after that thread I don’t think he’ll be getting any help from SBR. Guy sounds like a psycho gambler, looks like BO was looking for a reason to ban him and he gave them one. Opti got him back in the door the first time but OP f’ed it up.
I forgot about that angle too.
I think arbers can get caught up in the rules quite easily as well, due to the volume they can turn over.
Oh gawd that guy.
No idea if he is genuine or not, but if he acts so suspiciously and evasive any time asked a question, I bet he gets himself in this sort of problem regularly in life.
He would not answer me regarding exactly what he said, and would not answer when asked about the first ban, so I had already decided there was no way I am sticking my neck out for him.
But sent him to Dave Mason anyway. OP complains that he can't contact Dave as he doesnt have twitter (well if you dont care enough to spend 10 secs to register so you can contact him... dont ask me to bloody care). So I just said use email then and make it attention to Dave and hope CS does not intercept.
His reply is "please help me". Did not even know what to do with that. So ignored it.
Thanks for reminding me that this is the same guy who acted this same way last time PD77. Glad I did not get involved with him again this time.
I literally made a twitter and @DaveMasonBOL can't be messaged. I thought this was a forum to voice grievances and get solutions to problematic sportsbooks. All you've done, Optional, is call me a liar, behind my back, ignore my emails and feign a half-assed attempt at providing anything resembling help. In general I've been nothing but polite to you, taken your abuse in stride and answered your questions to the best of my ability. You think I had the phone call recorded? I was on a loosing streak and made a tongue in cheek comment (yes, a pessimistic joke, one that I know I have made before with nothing like this happening) that I just want to playthrough my impossible rollover bonus, probably lose it, then call GA.
Last edited by jayee; 01-08-22 at 09:24 PM.
Please at least give me a legitimate method to get into contact with Dave Mason. Betonline support will not accept my emails. Call me a liar again (even though I've been forward from the beginning and even have customer service agents who vouched saying I have made similar statements in joking manner), make a mockery of me to act big in front of this forum, but still, conjure up whatever microthread of empathy is left in your mind to help me this time and I will never bother you again.
Last edited by jayee; 01-08-22 at 09:50 PM.
For future reference, I think you have to be followed by him to DM him. So you just shoot him a tweet asking him to follow you or DM you so that you can reply.
I think op stated he couldn’t PM Dave so op will need to follow him to PM him.
What I'm saying is that's not enough. I followed him and still couldn't PM. So I had to tweet at him and ask him to follow me so that I could PM him, and that worked.
I asked you what you said, multiple times.
You ignored me three times, and finally you claimed you dont recall.
You were asked a couple of times why this was "again" and ignored it.
Looking back at the last thread you were just as evasive there.
I can also see from that thread that you DO know who Dave Mason is, despite you claiming otherwise to me as well.
And you don't get why you come across as a liar???
1) I would need to know the full truth to stick my head out and advocate for anyone. You ddi not give me ANY of the truth to work with.
2) I told you I cannot officially approach BOL for you as an SBR rep anymore, but would PM to ease the way for you. You ignore that and come at me to speak for you. REFER TO Both 1) and 2) for why I won't.
3) You appear to know Dave Mason won't help you again, so tried to claim you dont know him or have twitter so cant help yourself. I still won't speak for you. Refer to 1) and 2) for the reasons why.
4) I said to email CS and mark it attention Dave Mason if you do not want to twitter Dave. You have no reason you don't want to do that, but again come at me to talk to them for you. REFER TO 1) and 2) for why i wont do that for you.
Got it now pal???
Last edited by Optional; 01-08-22 at 11:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
KVB gave Optional 2 Betpoint(s) for this post.
.jpg)