– your source for reliable information about online gambling.

  • Over 2k complaints managed and $2 million returned to players.
  • The largest collection of detailed casino reviews available online.
  • Bonus value reports to tell you how bonuses really compare.
  • Detailed game guides to help you learn to play.

I certify that I am over 18 years of age and I have read and agreed to the:

We respect your privacy and won't share your email address.
Aweber logo
[X] Close this form and return to site
Close geo
Turn geolocation on
Locale settings

Currently viewing:

English in United States

WinningRoom - Self-exclusion not upheld


Found for the Casino - Redbet/Winning Room have systems in place to detect duplicate self-exclusion registrations and informed the player at registration that the exclusion at one property applied to the other.

Read our Redbet Casino Review.

Player's Complaint

I was able to open an account with winningroom despite a 2 self-exclusion requests with Redbet. Winnningroom have acknowledged the self-exclusion and that the details were the name on accounts that have been self-excluded. I requested a self-exclusion shortly after opening the account and learned the casino was operated by Redbet. I requested a refund and this was refused as Redbet claim the account was closed within 24 hours and I ticked a box stating I was not self-excluded. Other casinos block accounts at the registration stage why could redbet not have did this. Additionally, winningroom would unlikely have paid any winnings- I find this unfair as it offers no protection for self-excluded players and creates a win-win for the casino

Read the casino review

4 Responses

User icon
July 31, 2017

Hi karenby - welcome to!

Unfortunately there's nothing we can do to help you with this issue. The reality is that while all UK licensed operators are required to take reasonable steps to prevent self-excluded players accessing their services, this does not extend to the point where they are held responsible when a self-excluded player actively chooses to take action to sign-up a new account despite being aware of their own self-exclusion.

Having just gone through the Winning Room registration process the last screen is as shown below:

As can be seen above the check box that you have to acknowledge before you can open an account clearly states that you have not self-excluded at Redbet. Given this it's not reasonable to claim that you weren't aware that your exclusion at Redbet did not apply at Winning Room. In short the operator has taken reasonable efforts to ensure you were aware that your self-exclusion applied at Winning Room and subsequently took action within a reasonable length of time of your account opening despite you acknowledging at point of registration that you didn't have any self-exclusion.

With regard to the 'win-win' for the casino, unfortunately what you're asking for is to have the same situation enforced for yourself. You have already asked for losses back and would unquestionably have insisted on winnings being paid had you won despite the fact that you'd been informed that you could not play.

I'm sorry, there's no grounds for us to uphold your complaint in this instance.


User icon
July 31, 2017

Thank-you for taking the time to look at the matter. However, I disagree on your comment that I was attempting to create a win-win situation. As should I have won anything or attempted to withdraw winningroom/redbet would not have paid the winning due to the self-exclusion and they would have returned the deposits. I have no doubt many casinos are aware when a self-excluded player registers and I would not be surprised if they ensure the self-excluded player loses. There are many online casinos such as progressive play casinos, Paddy power, jenningbet, virgin, sky to name a view that prevent new accounts being opened by self-excluded players at registration. An individual with a gambling addition will tick the box to say they have no exclusion in place to gamble- as they have addition. The point of self-exclusion in my opinion should be to be protect vulnerable players who have identified themselves as having a gambling addiction. In the case of Redbet that protection was not upheld in my opinion and all reasonable steps where not taken to prevent the account being opened. Additionally the casino have profited and choose to profit from a known self-excluded player. I feel it unfair that society places the blame on the person with an addiction and places the shame on them. When really many casinos are using there power to profit from vunerable people and they get away with due to the shame and stigma attached to addiction. Many online casino choose to put measures in place to protect vunerable people- as mentioned above. In my opinion they choose to put people's well-being before profit. However, I believe that Redbet has chosen to put profit before vulnerable- otherwise they would use the same methods of protection as the casino mentioned above. people Thank-you for you time [EDIT]

User icon
August 1, 2017

Hi karenby,

You're correct that operator's are required to take reasonable actions to prevent self-excluded players from accessing their services. However, this does not extend to exonerating the player of all responsibility for their own actions. Self-exclusions do not entitle you to make active efforts to play with the group again and claim back losses if things do not go your way.

Having dealt with self-exclusion cases with this group I know that their system will automatically look for and restrict accounts that match the details of a self-excluded account already within the system. This is common across most multiple property licensees, though the specific data point matches that will trigger the restriction vary. That being the case, at least some of the details that you've entered at registration must have differed from the restricted account, preventing the automated system from detecting your registration.

The operator has taken the extra precaution of specifically informing you at point of sign-up of the other properties where a self-exclusion would apply. Few other groups do that and to my mind this is a very positive practice. You've actively checked a box saying you were not self-excluded at Redbet.

Finally, despite the above the operator has found and acted on the self-exclusion within a reasonable length of time.

I understand your frustration and I do sympathise with your situation, but this is not a situation where the operator has failed to meet their Responsible Gambling requirements.


User icon
August 1, 2017

Many Thanks

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


karenby consented for ThePOGG to act on their behalf and share the personal information that they provide to ThePOGG with the following agencies for the purposes of resolving their complaint:

July 31, 2017

United States country flag