Gamstop is effective, but certainly isn’t bullet proof, as in it only bans UK licensed casinos.

As a former problem gambler I know this first hand.

Also I have never had to beg to have an account closed by stating problem gambling. if this is the case in Finland then that is very worrying.

Hope you find a way through the struggles

I wish you a good day

Yeah, the obvious vulnerability Gamstop leaves is certainly bad and from what I've understood Curacao-based casinos exploit this loophole quite effectively. Finland, luckily, is trying to ban all transaction flow from those in the future, leaving the Finnish license the only feasible one.

Did you state problem gambling for the reason for closure. In the UK the self exclusion for problem gambling is usually actioned instantly with no option to reopen.

If you self exclude for a period of 30 days, 6 months etc then the account can be reopened after this time.

I can’t speak for all casinos as I don’t work in the industry. But my advice would to always make sure to state problem gambling for the reason for the account closure.

Good luck with your journey

It isn’t even specific to cura?ao licensed one to be honest.

A lot of foreign based casinos actively seek out UK based players through methods I won’t post on the forum.

It is a huge problem and I feel pain for anyone who goes through gambling addiction because it is definitely the most difficult thing I’ve experienced in my life.

I hope Finland manage to make a system more effective than Gamstop.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of people from UK complain about the situation. I personally am in the better end with my addiction as well, but what I'm hearing is that blocks that have been requested specifically due to problem gambling are certainly being reversed. And I think the fact that soon the operator's won't be able to milk the Finns is a big reason.

That’s great to hear that you’re at the better end. It’s a long hard fight. Took me about 15 years in total before I finally managed to beat it.

It’s disgusting that requests are being reversed. This is something I’ve never experienced. I mean I have tried numerous times in the past to access casinos I knew full well I was excluded from. It’s what an addict does isn’t it. But fortunately I never succeeded, so then you just move to the next and repeat. You know how it is

I hope you don't mind me adding related information about account closure specifics here. This information is relevant to this discussion, and also to your rejected complaint, I belive

"People close their accounts for many reasons, and online casinos' responses to such requests can vary significantly. Therefore, you should have a clear understanding of why you want to close your account and then proceed accordingly:

1 - Closing an account: This option should be used when you no longer want to play at the casino for reasons other than experiencing gambling harm. In many cases, you can find such an option in your account settings, or you can ask customer support to close your account. They will most likely want to find out the reason or possibly change your decision with incentives like bonuses or free spins.

2 - Self-exclusion for a specific period or permanent: This option should be solely used when you are experiencing gambling harm and feel like you need to take a break. However, it is used for a number of different reasons in practice because self-exclusion might be the quickest way to close an account and not hear from the casino again. As a result, casinos might approach such cases less seriously. Why would they take extra effort if no harm is in place?

3 - Self-exclusion due to gambling addiction: You should have a clear understanding of why you want to close your account and then proceed accordingly. Only then will you have the best chance of closing your account the way struggling players expect.

It is, however, fair to add that this year we have been witnessing several big casinos reopening self-excluded accounts even without the player's request. This phenomenon has been observed regardless of the license and market type. We are still quite in shock.

Your complaint was, however, closed due to this:

"The player in the other complaint clearly mentioned gambling addiction to the casino - meaning the casino was obligate to close the player's account." As far as we know, you did not mention the gambling problem at all. I'm sorry, that's the main and only point.

Unfortunately, many casinos these days have adopted a way of pretending to be responsible. For example, even if you have been permanently banned from the casino due to gambling addiction, they will agree to reopen your account and ask you questions about your responsibility.

They may ask, for example, whether you are now in control of your gambling, whether you take full responsibility for the money, what feelings gambling causes in you, etc. I think these questions are very problematic and unfortunately a person with a gambling addiction will not answer them truthfully if the intention is to get into the casino in question to play. I am sure that the casinos know this very well too. This is how they justify reopening the account, and then afterwards they can show that you said you took full responsibility and are now in control of your actions, and so on.

I think this current trend is extremely worrying. Casinos certainly know what they are doing and how to get banned players back playing by taking advantage of their weak moments. They pretend to be responsible, but the reality is completely different.

Valitettavasti nyky??n moni kasino on ottanut tavan miss? he esitt?v?t olevansa vastuullisia. Esimerkiksi vaikka olisit saanut pysyv?t estot kasinolle peliriippuvuuden takia he suostuvat avaamaan tilin uudelleen, ja kysyv?t sinulta vastuullisuuteen liittyvi? kysymyksi?.

He voivat kysy? vaikka, ett? oletko nyt hallinnassa pelaamisestasi, otatko kaiken vastuun rahoista, mit? tuntemuksia pelaaminen sinussa aiheuttaa yms. Mielest?ni n?m? kysymykset ovat eritt?in ongelmallisia eik? peliriippuvainen henkil? valitettavasti tule n?ihin vastaamaan totuudenmukaisesti, jos tarkoituksena on p??st? kyseiselle kasinolle pelaamaan. Olen varma, ett? my?s kasinot sen tiet?v?t varsin hyvin. T?ll? he ik??nkuin oikeuttaa tilin avaamisen uudelleen, ja sitten j?lkik?teen voivat n?ytt??, ett? sin?h?n sanoit ottavasi kaiken vastuun ja olevasi nyt hallinnassa toimistasi ja niin edelleen.

Mielest?ni t?m? nykyinen suuntaus on ??rimm?isen huolestuttava. Kasinot kyll? varmasti tiet?v?t mit? tekev?t, ja miten saavat estetyt pelaajat takaisin pelaamaan k?ytt?en heikkoja hetki? hyv?ksi. He esitt?v?t olevansa muka vastuullisia, mutta todellisuus on ihan toista.

"It is, however, fair to add that this year we have been witnessing several big casinos reopening self-excluded accounts even without the player's request. This phenomenon has been observed regardless of the license and market type. We are still quite in shock."

Yup. I think this is a truly bizrre phenomenon and a great concern with the Finnish audience at least.

Really sad to hear that.

I know the UK government are actively looking to enforce more focus on player protection etc

Hopefully the rest of the world follows suit

I wish I could provide some insight into this specific problem. I am not aware of any meaningful responses from those operators.

I assume that the intention was so obvious that there is no possible justification for such an action.

Yes, I mentioned that the reason is gambling.

And especially when the casino asked for the length of the closure, for some reason the one option was "permanently". I certainly expect that the casino will respect that length. The fact that that request is violated should at least be mentioned in the casino description here, but Casino Guru still gives that casino a security rate --> "High", which also makes me wonder why the casino is not already noted in that way.

Casino Guru could protect players much better, but for some reason they don't.

What is your opinion about the fact that even MGA allows casinos to reopen an account that has been permanently self-excluded due addiction. This only with 7 days cooling off period and asking responsibility questions such as are you now on control, do you take full responsibility etc. I think this is really wrong as they take advantage of relapses that addiction people may have. Of course they will get answers like there isnt any problem, i take every responsibility etc.

And when you later go to ask that was this really the right thing to do, they just answer that you said everything is okay now etc. I think casinos together with MGA has found this as a way to get addict persons to play again and this way circumvent exclusion. Kind of make it to look like they are really responsible by making sure first but i think this is just a way to use addiction.

How do you think?

Did you mention gambling addiction? Because, in my opinion, gambling, as a standalone word, is not what you might expect.

I will say it again: if you can not prove you explicitly mentioned your gambling addiction to the casino when you requested a permanent account closure, the associated complaint and refunds will not be accepted. Furthermore, we cannot penalize the casino for this, and the Safety index stays unchanged.

Do you understand the details and the difference, please?

This case has been handled many times now, i give up already with Casino Guru, one other website still try to solve it.

But obe more time..

I have mentioned to the casino that it is gambling reason and I want to close my account permanently. I was not able to explain out how it all happened because my complaint was closed before I could tell anyone about it.

And I will repeat it here one more time because my complaint was not even reopened, --> there is not a very good term in Finnish for that self-closing and with the Finnish chat agent they always talk about only closing the account and that is why that term is not found in the documents I sent because they were in Finnish language. ????

Complaint closure reason is still at i dont use word "self-closing" ??

I think such "benevolence" should be cautiously applied in situations where, for example, the management is not convinced that the player is really having an issue. To be perfectly honest, cheeky players far too often misuse self-exclusion. However, in my opinion, it makes little sense to be so benevolent anytime someone says, "We can."

I don't mean to sound like I'm avoiding the subject; I'm just trying to say that without considering a license, a decent casino should educate support workers, managers, and VIP managers to recognize potential threats and, in direct cooperation with the player, find the best and most suitable solution.

Not everyone is always ready to say, "Hey, I'm addicted. Now I feel strong enough to ask for permanent self-exclusion." But, once the player states that clearly, I see no fair justification for not closing the account as soon as the casino platform technically allows such a step.

Well then there isnt really any PERMANENT self-exclusion, only for now? At least your answer kind of tells that.

I see. It's a gambling addiction, gambling problem, or gambling issue.

Not "self-closing" or "gambling," I'm afraid.

I wish you, of course, the best of luck elsewhere. However, here and now, I was hoping to help you recognize the best way to ask for permanent self-exclusion due to gambling addiction. As you can see, sometimes it is safer to state that in English.

Yet, I respect your opinion and won't bother you anymore. Wish you only the best.

It is permanent self-exclusion, but only due to gambling addiction. The other options can be taken back by the player.

? I just said you that MGA allows to reopen permanent self-exclusion Even when it is due addiction. You just answered that this is okay, didn't you? I really feel like you didn't understand My message at all and i would advice to read it again.

So in reality there really isnt any PERMANENT self-exclusion Even due addiction, because it can be removed.