Bob - Self-exclusion

Hi eemino - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

As we are the ADR for the N1 Interactive Ltd license under the Malta Gaming Authority license there is certain information we have to provide you now.

You can find all the relevant information about this service here – http://thepogg.com/terms-of-use/ and the terms of use for our complaint service here - https://thepogg.com/terms-of-use-for-dispute-resolution-service/

To summarise.

– Use of this service does not preclude your seeking redress through court proceedings .

– This service is free to use for both the complainant and operator.

– At any point during the procedure the submitting party retains the right to withdraw their complaint. This does not preclude our right to continue the discussion with the involved operator of general issues related to the complaint (i.e. insufficiently clear terms and conditions).

– You are not obliged to obtain independent or legal advice or representation, though you may choose to do so.

If you have any questions about the above, let me know.

Do you have any record of the communications where you requested your self-exclusion at other N1 properties? Did you ask that your self-exclusion be applied across all properties on the license?

You may find our free Responsible Gambling app BetBlocker useful. It allows users to restrict their internet capable devices from accessing over 12k gambling operator websites for between 24 hours and 5 years.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

I've excluded myself at all casino sites, and i have mailed them as well regarding this.

When i block myself at one site, i should not be allower to play on any sister sites with the same owner, they need to take responsibility for this.

It sounds undeniably very strange that I would be allowed to play at a casino, block myself, and then be able to continue on another site just because it is a different name but the same owner.

I want all my money back that i deposit. In Sweden, and on any other network, this is not OK at all, since they can just pop up with new sites, and we all that have an gamling issue can just register on the new site.

All records where i've blocked my account can be provided with the N1-network. They can see that i've blocked myself on ALL of theyre casinon after i deposit. Then they can see that i registered at a new one, and played and then blocked myself again.

For example. I closed my account Fri, 01/31/20 at BetAmo. After that i requested to open it. They then said:

"We kindly ask you to familiarize yourself with the following information and confirm your consent by replying to the letter:

- You'd like your account reopened;

- You don't have any personal, financial or gaming-related issues;

- The reasons for closure are no longer relevant and you can play responsibly;

- You take full responsibility for all transactions and gameplay, should your account be reopened."

After that i answered:

"Do not reopen my account. I want my account permanent closed. " .

They are the same Network.

HI eemino,

Bob Casino operate under the MGA license. The MGA license does not require self-exclusions to be carried over to other properties on the license unless the player explicitly requests this. If you have not asked for this to happen your self-exclusion will only apply at the site you request it.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

I have asked them to exclude me from the entire network in the beginning in chat.

That is however the most strange thing i have ever heard. It's like i borrow money to a game addict, then he says he dont want to loan any more, so i change name and then it's fine again.

I guess thanks for nothing.

Hi eemino,

Do you have a record of this chat conversation?

And yes, we would agree that the MGA Responsible Gambling policies could be improved, but as we act on behalf of the regulator in these matters we have to enforce the rules that they set.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

No, sadly i don't. I dont use to print screenshots at all.

Can you look over the case anyway, or is it impossible to get anything back, since they are not violating the terms regarding to MGA Responsible gamling policies?

It's quite funny though that other network providers in the MGA does lock down your account on other sites. For example Scatters.

"In regards of your unsuccessful deposits on our casino is due to you're blocked across our license and therefor your deposit attempts are rejected when it's being requested."

How come some of the providers do this, and not all - when both are under the MGA?

Hi eemino,

The MGA set the standards. Operators are free to engage higher standards, but are under no obligation to do so.

I'll contact the operator and review your communications with their support team.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Thank you.

Hopefully they take responsibility regarding this matter and preventing more issues for people who have an issue with gambling.

Hi eemino,

Which brand do you believe you made the request to exclude across the license?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi!

Sadly i do not remember, but they should have chatloggs. You have my permission to read them all.

Hi eemino,

Can you give some indication of when this happened? Expecting us to sift through every communication you have ever had with any operator on this license is a big request.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Sadly i do not remember. Perhaps the errand would be a little easier if the network could take responsibility for all of their casino-sites. Then we wouldnt be in this situation.

But i learned something. I can do ugly things and then just change name, and everything will be forgotten.

Hi eemino,

I've now reviewed all of your correspondence with this group. The only self-exclusion that you placed with this group was at Maneki casino. You contacted the operator on the 24th of January and asked to lift that self-exclusion. The operator correctly asked relevant questions and upon receiving reasonable answers agreed to lift this self-exclusion after a 7 day cooling-off period as required by their license. Your other account closures neither indicated that they were related to gambling addiction issues, so would not have been considered self-exclusions, nor included requests to extend across the license.

ThePOGG