Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Betting question: help please





imissworthing2

New member
Mar 15, 2008
1,483
In the Valleys
Indeed, this is the nub of the issue.

Self-Exclusion
If you feel you are at risk of developing a gambling problem or believe you currently have a gambling problem, please consider Self-Exclusion.
If you want to stop playing for any other reason, please consider taking a Time-Out or using Account Closure.
Self-Exclusion allows you to close your account for a specified period of 6 months, 1 year, 2 years or 5 years. This prevents you gambling with bet365 for your selected period of time.
During a period of self-exclusion you will not be able to use your account for betting and gaming, although you will still be able to login to withdraw any remaining balance. It will not be possible to re-open your account for any reason, and bet365 will do all it can to detect and close any new accounts you may open.
You also have the option of selecting which areas of the site you would like to limit your access to, for example, Sports, Poker or all Gaming products.
Should you opt to self-exclude from bet365, we strongly recommend that you seek exclusion from all other gambling operators you have an account with.
Whilst we will remove you from our marketing databases, we also suggest that you remove bet365 from your notifications and delete/uninstall all bet365 apps, downloads and social media links. You may also wish to consider installing software that blocks access to gambling websites, click here for more information.
We recommend that you seek support from a problem gambling support service to help you deal with your problem.
You can self-exclude your account in the Responsible Gambling Controls section of Members by choosing Self-Exclusion.
Alternatively you can Contact our customer service team for assistance and further information.

Yep, it was about 4 years ago but I did self excluded (99% sure)
 


Swillis

Banned
Dec 10, 2015
1,568
If you ask them to close your account, and they don't then they are in the wrong here IMHO. If the OP just asked for self-exclusion, and used opening a new account to get round that he is in the wrong. It should have been picked up on opening the new account, and he is unfortunate, but he should have used a different bookie. If Bet365 was the first to come to mind, surely he would have tried his existing log-in

It could be it was picked up on a verification check. Maybe a different card was used or even address.
Either way the op is intent on recouping that £200, seems like it was money they could not afford to lose. If the account was closed to problem gambling then this may be the best thing that could have happened. I know about problem gambling more than most.
When I closed my many accounts I was asked by all of them why I wanted to close it, when I told them due to a gambling problem I was told it was permanent and directed to gamcare. Pity they could have recommended them before I lost all the money :wrong:
 




Thanks for your input mate. It is just coincidence tho. 200 was based on the acculmaltor I would have done with man u, Chelsea, arsenal.

Basically, I'm hoping that if someone has "self excluded" themselves and tries to open a new account all bets will be void once noticed???

Even if someone self excludes due to a gambling problem, I think you'll find generally speaking bets placed stand win or lose, there has been some very big cases taken to court and I believe they have gone in favour of the bookmaker.

Self exclusion (in the shops) is a useful tool but those that take this route need to meet the operator half way. Staff are obliged to prevent those from betting and knowingly allowing them to would result in the sack. However self excluders do go into shops with woolly hats etc to avoid detection, likewise they try to open accounts in other names etc.
 




imissworthing2

New member
Mar 15, 2008
1,483
In the Valleys
It could be it was picked up on a verification check. Maybe a different card was used or even address.
Either way the op is intent on recouping that £200, seems like it was money they could not afford to lose. If the account was closed to problem gambling then this may be the best thing that could have happened. I know about problem gambling more than most.
When I closed my many accounts I was asked by all of them why I wanted to close it, when I told them due to a gambling problem I was told it was permanent and directed to gamcare. Pity they could have recommended them before I lost all the money :wrong:

Yep, that's the issue. I made a new account and a few hours later upon checks they noticed I had previously self excluded. They then returned my balance to my bank account but accepted my initial bet. I think they should have void my first bet upon noticing this irrelevant of whether it was winning/losing
 




crookie

Well-known member
Jun 14, 2013
3,305
Back in Sussex
Yep, that's the issue. I made a new account and a few hours later upon checks they noticed I had previously self excluded. They then returned my balance to my bank account but accepted my initial bet. I think they should have void my first bet upon noticing this irrelevant of whether it was winning/losing
Yes, it may be worth contacting the regulator on this point. I don't rate your chances but worth an email.

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
 




Swillis

Banned
Dec 10, 2015
1,568
Yep, hence why there was a delay in verification.

Like I said, not sure if this is something I should continue to look into but seems in my head anyhows, that they shouldn't have accepted any bets from me

Sorry mate, you knew you self excluded and basically tried to work around it.
As soon as they discovered it they refused anymore bets. Seems like they are covered and have acted properly. Move on and forget about it.
 




imissworthing2

New member
Mar 15, 2008
1,483
In the Valleys
Sorry mate, you knew you self excluded and basically tried to work around it.
As soon as they discovered it they refused anymore bets. Seems like they are covered and have acted properly. Move on and forget about it.


Do you reckon, I kinda think that once they realised I had previously excluded myself they have a responsibility to void all bets I made today
 




Swillis

Banned
Dec 10, 2015
1,568
Do you reckon, I kinda think that once they realised I had previously excluded myself they have a responsibility to void all bets I made today

You had a responsibility not to try and open a new account having self excluded. If you had used all the same details as your old account it would have rejected straight away, but you have said you used a new card or address. Upon doing their checks they linked the accounts and it seems they have voiced all bets from that point, I think you have absolutely no chance to be honest.
I know you say that you think they wouldn't have paid out had Newcastle won, but I doubt you would be complaining had Newcastle won and your bet on Sheffield Wednesday winning had been returned.
Sounds like you were also chasing money, been there and got the t shirt.
 


imissworthing2

New member
Mar 15, 2008
1,483
In the Valleys
You had a responsibility not to try and open a new account having self excluded. If you had used all the same details as your old account it would have rejected straight away, but you have said you used a new card or address. Upon doing their checks they linked the accounts and it seems they have voiced all bets from that point, I think you have absolutely no chance to be honest.
I know you say that you think they wouldn't have paid out had Newcastle won, but I doubt you would be complaining had Newcastle won and your bet on Sheffield Wednesday winning had been returned.
Sounds like you were also chasing money, been there and got the t shirt.

Yep, agree with you completely but our subjective opinion on what I may or may not have done is irrelevant. Do they have a responsibility to not accept a bet from me once self excluded is the key.

I haven't got a clue.
 


crookie

Well-known member
Jun 14, 2013
3,305
Back in Sussex
Only on the basis that the new account application should have been rejected at the time if he genuinely used the same personal details. Personally I'm still suspicious on the level of the bet in relation to the sign up bonus. Why, if you haven't bet for ages would you lump £200 on an accumulator ? Madness

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
 




Swillis

Banned
Dec 10, 2015
1,568
Only on the basis that the new account application should have been rejected at the time if he genuinely used the same personal details. Personally I'm still suspicious on the level of the bet in relation to the sign up bonus. Why, if you haven't bet for ages would you luke £200 on an accumulator ? Madness

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

He has admitted either using a new card or address.
As for the amount, could it be a gambling problem. Hence the self exclusion, not having a dig. I have been there sand wouldn't wish it on anyone.
 


Swillis

Banned
Dec 10, 2015
1,568
Yep, agree with you completely but our subjective opinion on what I may or may not have done is irrelevant. Do they have a responsibility to not accept a bet from me once self excluded is the key.

I haven't got a clue.

But how would they know it is you unless all the details are the same. If something is different they will only know once the checks are carried out. It seems that as soon as they were, you were then barred from getting with them. I speak from experience.
My feeling is that you are angry at yourself but want to take it out on them and they seem to have acted properly to be honest, once again I age been there, seen it, done it.
 


imissworthing2

New member
Mar 15, 2008
1,483
In the Valleys
Only on the basis that the new account application should have been rejected at the time if he genuinely used the same personal details. Personally I'm still suspicious on the level of the bet in relation to the sign up bonus. Why, if you haven't bet for ages would you lump £200 on an accumulator ? Madness

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Don't be suspicious but yes I agree it was madness ( and alcohol induced) . Slightly long story but I worked out if I bet on other 3 o clock games that I intended to I would have 200 going onto the Newcastle game. I didn't bet on them so I put 200 on the game. I'm a dipsh@@ I know.
 


GoldWithFalmer

Seaweed! Seaweed!
Apr 24, 2011
12,687
SouthCoast
Opening myself up to lots of abuse no doubt but hoping for some help please.

Here goes:

Just got off the phone with Bet365.I have previously had a bet365 account and closed it. I opened a new account today: same personal details but new id.

I placed a bet on the newcastle game and (I'll be honest) as things were not going to plan I tried to make an additional bet on Wednesday to make some form of winning. I went to place the bet but couldn't as the money in my account had disappeared: apparently it had been returned to my bank account and my account suspended.

The guy on the phone said that as I have not made a reactivation call my account got suspended but they only noticed after I placed my initial bet. So my initial bet still stands.

Can anyone clarify, does the initial bet still stand by someone who has self excluded themselves from using this betting company. The guy says that to use bet365 again I needed to make a reactivation call to use them again.

I never made the call so am thinking that all bets I made with them today should be void and initial deposit returned to my bank account. May be completely wrong but have a feeling that if I had won as opposed to lose they wouldn't have paid out.

Hope this makes sense and someone can let me know if this something I should pursue?

Any advice/ abuse greatly appreciated :)

Cheers

This may be or may not be of any use (from a non betting neutral) so to speak.

I am no betting man,but normally in days of old all bets were at the final whistle 90 minutes,no extra time as such,now here's the thing,if a game gets called off (you not reactivating etc) that results in no 90 minutes or final whistle......keep barking up that tree.
 






imissworthing2

New member
Mar 15, 2008
1,483
In the Valleys
But how would they know it is you unless all the details are the same. If something is different they will only know once the checks are carried out. It seems that as soon as they were, you were then barred from getting with them. I speak from experience.
My feeling is that you are angry at yourself but want to take it out on them and they seem to have acted properly to be honest, once again I age been there, seen it, done it.

Yep, you are right.

And if that is correct legally then it's fine. If once they knew I had self excluded they should have voided all bets: then I want my move back.


Thanks to all for your input. Please rest assured that any problem I had with gambling was along time ago. This is one silly little blip that will have no lasting affect on my on going life. Cheers
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here