Stake removing a bonus and lying about it

[dupeddonk]

6 hours ago, ktinho said:

would say that any self excluded player that is allowed to continue gambling on the account that has been  or should have been self excluded should be reimbursed whatever they deposited during that period  minus whatever they withdrew.  

But this will just give an incentive for the player to try and gamble/free roll and enforce the idea that so many addicts convince themselves of: "it's not my fault".

I think they need to come up with an online version of the standard brick and mortar policy: if you self exclude and get caught trying to gamble, any money you have in play (chips, in a machine, waiting for a hand pay,etc) is confiscated and handed over to the regulator. If a casino is caught sending promotional material or allowing an excluded player to continue to play for any significant amount of time they pay a fine.

The system encourages all parties to follow the terms of the exclusion.

I think Stake should require a player self excluding to choose a charity from a pre approved list that will receive any funds that are in a self excluded players account that has been caught trying to gamble. 

It would solve so many problems. 

[Tarrterr]

45 minutes ago, dupeddonk said:

But this will just give an incentive for the player to try and gamble/free roll and enforce the idea that so many addicts convince themselves of: "it's not my fault".

I think they need to come up with an online version of the standard brick and mortar policy: if you self exclude and get caught trying to gamble, any money you have in play (chips, in a machine, waiting for a hand pay,etc) is confiscated and handed over to the regulator. If a casino is caught sending promotional material or allowing an excluded player to continue to play for any significant amount of time they pay a fine.

The system encourages all parties to follow the terms of the exclusion.

I think Stake should require a player self excluding to choose a charity from a pre approved list that will receive any funds that are in a self excluded players account that has been caught trying to gamble. 

It would solve so many problems. 

The point of self exclusion is to STOP a player from gambling, if self exclusion means they can freely deposit and gamble on the same account, what is the point of it? Literally makes no difference

You speak of requiring a fine for sending promo content and letting a player gamble during their self exclusion period, yet that's exactly what they're doing and they haven't faced any consequences yet.

 

I believe if a player circumvents self exclusion by using another account, that is on them, they just can't regulate that.

 

In my case it's the same account that was self excluded, I lost money I wouldn't have lost had Stake followed their license terms.

After stake finally self excluded me about a week ago, I haven't placed a single bet. It would not have been hard to grant me self exclusion, yet they didn't do it and caused large losses for me.

 

Am I to blame for these losses as well? Sure, but self exclusion exists for a reason. It won't help someone that doesn't want to be helped. I do. I have for 2 years. They ignored these requests and blatantly lie claiming they did ban me when I've proven they didn't.

[dupeddonk]

4 hours ago, Tarrterr said:

The point of self exclusion is to STOP a player from gambling, if self exclusion means they can freely deposit and gamble on the same account, what is the point of it? Literally makes no difference

You speak of requiring a fine for sending promo content and letting a player gamble during their self exclusion period, yet that's exactly what they're doing and they haven't faced any consequences yet.

 

I believe if a player circumvents self exclusion by using another account, that is on them, they just can't regulate that.

 

In my case it's the same account that was self excluded, I lost money I wouldn't have lost had Stake followed their license terms.

After stake finally self excluded me about a week ago, I haven't placed a single bet. It would not have been hard to grant me self exclusion, yet they didn't do it and caused large losses for me.

 

Am I to blame for these losses as well? Sure, but self exclusion exists for a reason. It won't help someone that doesn't want to be helped. I do. I have for 2 years. They ignored these requests and blatantly lie claiming they did ban me when I've proven they didn't.

If you thought any deposit would likely be confiscated, you wouldn't play though.

If you think you have a shot at free rolling the house, then of course you're probably going to go for it. And there's really no incentive for you to go out of your way to let them know you shouldn't be playing, until you've lost enough. 

And, not accusing you, but what would you expect a degenerate to do if they self excluded, was allowed to gamble, and then got their losses refunded? They're going to do it again. And again. Until they don't think they can milk it any more. 

{Really nothing personal against you, I'm just saying what I expect to happen generally)

[Leonida1]

to be honest even if you got self excluded you would spent that money on any other online casino. 

its gone you risked it and you lost it 

[iulianbutanu]

Man but from a point of view it's his right. We are humans, casinos and games are made to make you addict...

[jmrtgnzlo]

where the heck is post-monthly 
only plat 2 users above can recieve reload and then the rest recieve nothing but pledge

[Tarrterr]

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

If you thought any deposit would likely be confiscated, you wouldn't play though.

If you think you have a shot at free rolling the house, then of course you're probably going to go for it. And there's really no incentive for you to go out of your way to let them know you shouldn't be playing, until you've lost enough. 

And, not accusing you, but what would you expect a degenerate to do if they self excluded, was allowed to gamble, and then got their losses refunded? They're going to do it again. And again. Until they don't think they can milk it any more. 

{Really nothing personal against you, I'm just saying what I expect to happen generally)

Do you see what your argument is currently based on? It's based on the assumption that not being granted self exclusion after requesting it is a common occurrence.

It is a term of their license that if a user requests self exclusion, they must grant it.

If Stake does not grant it, everything that happens henceforth is on them. It is their mistake and it is not an easy mistake to make.

If a recovering gambling addict requests self exclusion, they are not attempting gambling during self exclusion for free rolls, they're gambling because of the addiction they're trying to get rid of. This won't be possible if they're self excluded.

 

Now let's see what happens if a gambling addict self excluded just to attempt to get some free rolls. Stake will/should still self exclude them, but seeing as this is a mistake they should never make, that is one more gambling addict in self exclusion. They won't get any free rolls either since their account is in self exclusion. Net positive, wouldn't you say?

1 hour ago, Leonida1 said:

to be honest even if you got self excluded you would spent that money on any other online casino. 

its gone you risked it and you lost it 

Yet I haven't touched a single casino game since they self excluded me about a week ago (over 2 years late)

Don't generalize just because that's something you would do.

I'm addicted to Stake casino, I don't use other casinos (except the one I used to get crypto to deposit on Stake, which again, I do not have a purpose for anymore and do not use.

[dollartree1]

@dupeddonk what's your opinion on stake saying they did have him on self exclusion for a month and him having all the betIds showing he was able to bet?  You always put the "skem" threads into digestable coherent thoughts .. so putting opinions on self exclusion to the side, im curious of your thoughts on this? 

[dupeddonk]

1 hour ago, dollartree1 said:

@dupeddonk what's your opinion on stake saying they did have him on self exclusion for a month and him having all the betIds showing he was able to bet?  You always put the "skem" threads into digestable coherent thoughts .. so putting opinions on self exclusion to the side, im curious of your thoughts on this? 

They're obviously not very competent when it comes to self excluded players. Seems like internal miscommunications making an already sloppy process worse. Plus they probably spend more time dealing with players trying to exploit the system than players with legitimate issues, which just means the legitimate issues are more likely to be overlooked. 

 

Probably time to scrap the current system, create a director of self exclusion position, and let them start from scratch. 

[shipu4ka]

Бонусы это хорошо.В других проектах их меньше🤑

[ktinho]

10 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

But this will just give an incentive for the player to try and gamble/free roll and enforce the idea that so many addicts convince themselves of: "it's not my fault".

I think they need to come up with an online version of the standard brick and mortar policy: if you self exclude and get caught trying to gamble, any money you have in play (chips, in a machine, waiting for a hand pay,etc) is confiscated and handed over to the regulator. If a casino is caught sending promotional material or allowing an excluded player to continue to play for any significant amount of time they pay a fine.

The system encourages all parties to follow the terms of the exclusion.

I think Stake should require a player self excluding to choose a charity from a pre approved list that will receive any funds that are in a self excluded players account that has been caught trying to gamble. 

It would solve so many problems. 

the losses if you try to circumvent the system are not refunded. The casino just doesn't profit -  so deposits- withdrawals = charity.

They aren't freerolling as the casino recoups their losses not the player and then gives any surplus to charity.

Obviously there will be times when the casino loses out but when it comes to a problem gambler - they are more likely to redeposit a withdrawal than to keep it in their pocket.

 

Self exclusion is a major issue for crypto casinos  that don't require KYC by law.

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

They're obviously not very competent when it comes to self excluded players. Seems like internal miscommunications making an already sloppy process worse. Plus they probably spend more time dealing with players trying to exploit the system than players with legitimate issues, which just means the legitimate issues are more likely to be overlooked. 

 

Probably time to scrap the current system, create a director of self exclusion position, and let them start from scratch. 

 

2 hours ago, dollartree1 said:

@dupeddonk what's your opinion on stake saying they did have him on self exclusion for a month and him having all the betIds showing he was able to bet?  You always put the "skem" threads into digestable coherent thoughts .. so putting opinions on self exclusion to the side, im curious of your thoughts on this? 

They need to hold their hands up and be open and honest. Admit they failed this person. Of course it will hurt and perhaps someone is scared to lose their job or there are more situations like this that they are worried will be brought to attention.

Anonymous gambling and Self exclusion  are not the easiest thing in the world to master. I watch a few UK streamers and they have something called GAMSTOP all over their channels but that kind of system removes anonymity.

This is the reason I am intrigued by how they deal with this case - Player safety is vital

[Losingdough]

On 7/10/2022 at 4:57 AM, Ghostnipple said:

You can try an informal resolution. Make a proposal, they will either accept or reject.
Celebrities like myself and Drake are protective of our fan base, we would certainly think twice about associating with  individuals who have targeted our respective fans for any kind of exploitation.  I told Drake "your reputation guard it with your life, money comes and goes, you can always make more, but recovering a damaged reputation is near impossible. So be very careful who you associate with.

muahahahaha.. cough....ahahaaaa

HR: VIP Recruitment LTD, I will be your host for the duration, what assistance can I offer, please.?

Random: yeah bro, I'm ringing about the VIP job, does it pay money?

HR:  one sec...., sorry, ok that's the Executive VIP Host position, right?

Random: umm..yes

HR: Excellent ... I can definitely confirm that money may or may not be paid for this work. Do you have any experience as a host?

Random: well, I'm more on the "Parasite" side of things.

HR: "Host, Parasite, Criminal record' its all the same really, do you have access to a telephone?

Random: Im ringing you now, bro.

HR: haha bit of a trick question that one,... right so... Oh jeez there is a section here on "Relevant Education" Im guessing that's going to be tricky.......
.......oh to hell with it, I I dont normally do this.but you are obviously perfect for the job,  I just write "a friend of google"....and  with minutes to spare we are done...congratulations you start tomorrow. In fact double congratulations, as you have just been awarded Employee of the month.

Random WTF really?

HR: Yes a score of zero beats any negative score achieved by your colleagues, ( or all the negative scores in this case). Ive time for one last question if you keep it short thanks.

Random: When monthly?

 

you need to be published man! lmaf!

On 7/19/2022 at 6:53 AM, Tarrterr said:

You are COMPLETELY missing the point of the complaint. I asked for self exclusion and did not receive it.

Stake claims I did, yet I've proved that I never received it with tens of thousands of casino bets on the same account the self exclusion was requested and "granted"

 

I could have and should have been helped, yet never was. 

Also trust me, if a rehab employee sold crack to a recovering addict, that is a major lawsuit.

Stake claims I received self exclusion for 1 month on the 22nd of September of 2020. That means my self exclusion period should be 22nd of September to 22nd of October (depending on their definition of a month)

I have countless bets during this time period. I've attached a screenshot of a couple days.

im following your well documented, concise, and totally valid complaint. it seems to me that the management at stake must indeed feel that there success in the online gambling industry is such that there reputation , good or bad, is no longer of much consequence. true colors become quite vivid when this attitude is assumed. im wodering if op was momentarily color blinded when it comes to  the rather underhanded tactic of using hired guns such as "dupledonk" to try and derail a perfectly solid case by littering the thread with his usual BS. I doubt the tactic was lost on op and therefore my admiration for your shutting such an absurd and silly usage of subterfuge before its intended purpose to mislead and confuse the issue take root. 

17 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

If you thought any deposit would likely be confiscated, you wouldn't play though.

If you think you have a shot at free rolling the house, then of course you're probably going to go for it. And there's really no incentive for you to go out of your way to let them know you shouldn't be playing, until you've lost enough. 

And, not accusing you, but what would you expect a degenerate to do if they self excluded, was allowed to gamble, and then got their losses refunded? They're going to do it again. And again. Until they don't think they can milk it any more. 

{Really nothing personal against you, I'm just saying what I expect to happen generally)

Wow! Im almost speechless at the length you will go to try and validate your  pointless stance. What dont you understand about this. if the op self excluded then the casino bans his acct from depositing asap. cut and dry. problem solved. no one can abuse the other . its quite obvious why you are denying the obvious here, but seriously stake , you may try and use a better tactic then this . I doubt anyone following this thread are as brain dead as you must assume we are for you to resort to such fuckeries. you are only digging yourself a bigger hole. man up or at least keep quite.

[vinsilsimoes]

talk with Eddie!!

[Tarrterr]

2 hours ago, Losingdough said:

you need to be published man! lmaf!

im following your well documented, concise, and totally valid complaint. it seems to me that the management at stake must indeed feel that there success in the online gambling industry is such that there reputation , good or bad, is no longer of much consequence. true colors become quite vivid when this attitude is assumed. im wodering if op was momentarily color blinded when it comes to  the rather underhanded tactic of using hired guns such as "dupledonk" to try and derail a perfectly solid case by littering the thread with his usual BS. I doubt the tactic was lost on op and therefore my admiration for your shutting such an absurd and silly usage of subterfuge before its intended purpose to mislead and confuse the issue take root. 

Wow! Im almost speechless at the length you will go to try and validate your  pointless stance. What dont you understand about this. if the op self excluded then the casino bans his acct from depositing asap. cut and dry. problem solved. no one can abuse the other . its quite obvious why you are denying the obvious here, but seriously stake , you may try and use a better tactic then this . I doubt anyone following this thread are as brain dead as you must assume we are for you to resort to such fuckeries. you are only digging yourself a bigger hole. man up or at least keep quite.

I try to reply to every argument made against myself seeing as they can mislead users that check this thread for the first time. Obviously most people won't read all of it and will have to forge an opinion from the last couple replies.

I do not however feel any anger towards dupeddonk for going this far to attempt debunking my complaint, everyone is entitled to their opinion and viewpoints. I just try to explain my side of the story and provide as much information as possible to avoid misleading anyone.

Also, he did at least agree with the fact that Stake's self-exclusion is quite flawed and should be changed.

29 minutes ago, vinsilsimoes said:

talk with Eddie!!

I talked to him, Stake wasn't replying to my complaint and after messaging him, I got a response the same day.

He never messaged me himself, though. Just left me on read which I understand since I could use anything he says against Stake and it's smarter for an actual team that deals with this kind of stuff to form an official reply.

I messaged him once more but I believe he is currently on vacation so he has not read it yet.

[iulianbutanu]

1 hour ago, Tarrterr said:

I try to reply to every argument made against myself seeing as they can mislead users that check this thread for the first time. Obviously most people won't read all of it and will have to forge an opinion from the last couple replies.

I do not however feel any anger towards dupeddonk for going this far to attempt debunking my complaint, everyone is entitled to their opinion and viewpoints. I just try to explain my side of the story and provide as much information as possible to avoid misleading anyone.

Also, he did at least agree with the fact that Stake's self-exclusion is quite flawed and should be changed.

I talked to him, Stake wasn't replying to my complaint and after messaging him, I got a response the same day.

He never messaged me himself, though. Just left me on read which I understand since I could use anything he says against Stake and it's smarter for an actual team that deals with this kind of stuff to form an official reply.

I messaged him once more but I believe he is currently on vacation so he has not read it yet.

well, even on vacation he replies on tele. he is just ignoring your message but probably he will reply to you at a moment.

[Givem3]

Stake always gives us good bunoses they will not remove it 

[Losingdough]

On 7/20/2022 at 2:14 PM, Tarrterr said:

I try to reply to every argument made against myself seeing as they can mislead users that check this thread for the first time. Obviously most people won't read all of it and will have to forge an opinion from the last couple replies.

I do not however feel any anger towards dupeddonk for going this far to attempt debunking my complaint, everyone is entitled to their opinion and viewpoints. I just try to explain my side of the story and provide as much information as possible to avoid misleading anyone.

Also, he did at least agree with the fact that Stake's self-exclusion is quite flawed and should be changed.

I talked to him, Stake wasn't replying to my complaint and after messaging him, I got a response the same day.

He never messaged me himself, though. Just left me on read which I understand since I could use anything he says against Stake and it's smarter for an actual team that deals with this kind of stuff to form an official reply.

I messaged him once more but I believe he is currently on vacation so he has not read it yet.

well your a better man than I my friend. That is all i can say about that.

 

[Tarrterr]

Possibly final update:

 

The complaint has been closed as unresolved.

Stake failed to explain my deposits during my self exclusion period and decided to ignore the complaint to avoid consequences.

Stake has acknowledged both of my complaints but both were unresolved after me countering their replies and Stake not being able explain either one of them.

[Dudumax]

How to partecipate to the bonusdrop here in forum?

[HzPAT]

since i start play on stake.com im lost 70.000$

whe u ask them about bonus they always say there no bonus at this 

[Brainmanager]

@tarrterr tbh i don't trust askgamblers at all in any way since i tried several times raising complaintss wwith them aand they claim i didnt provide evidence which i did and then banned me.

and tbh they are just a website and cant do anything at all since they cant force the law.

[Justin0317]

This is true man on the past 50 billion bet catch your eligible if you cacth the the next one and no other like today need to 1.5x to win just win or lose give the bonus for the effort of players

[Daddy Moe]

i dunno i get everything good 

[Tarrterr]

37 minutes ago, Brainmanager said:

@tarrterr tbh i don't trust askgamblers at all in any way since i tried several times raising complaintss wwith them aand they claim i didnt provide evidence which i did and then banned me.

and tbh they are just a website and cant do anything at all since they cant force the law.

I've provided more than enough evidence and I have no issues with AskGamblers. In this case it's Stake not cooperating.

Obviously they can't do anything if Stake made the decision to ignore their responsibilities and not solve the issue at hand. 

34 minutes ago, Daddy Moe said:

i dunno i get everything good 

This thread was started for my first complaint about my removed bonus, but I've made another one which is about me being able to deposit and place bets on casino during my self exclusion (which stake had confirmed, I was supposed to be self excluded). That's what the discussion is currently primarily about.

 

 

[dupeddonk]

On 7/20/2022 at 2:54 PM, Losingdough said:

Wow! Im almost speechless at the length you will go to try and validate your  pointless stance. What dont you understand about this. if the op self excluded then the casino bans his acct from depositing asap. cut and dry. problem solved. no one can abuse the other.

I understand that part quite well.

Problem is, we don't have a time machine and as I've already said:

On 7/20/2022 at 2:21 AM, dupeddonk said:

They're obviously not very competent when it comes to self excluded players.

 

On 7/20/2022 at 2:54 PM, Losingdough said:

its quite obvious why you are denying the obvious here, but seriously stake , you may try and use a better tactic then this .

Sorry, what am I denying?  

 

On 7/20/2022 at 2:54 PM, Losingdough said:

I doubt anyone following this thread are as brain dead as you must assume we are for you to resort to such fuckeries. you are only digging yourself a bigger hole.

What fuckeries?

On 7/20/2022 at 2:54 PM, Losingdough said:

man up or at least keep quite.

Wtf?

Have I done something to you?