Tak for den detaljerede forklaring, RainBet Team , meget værdsat. Desværre ser det ud til, at vi er kommet i en blindgyde med denne sag.
Selvom e-mail-processen til tider kan være langsom, har vi indført et automatisk selvudelukkelsessystem for at hjælpe brugerne med at tage en pause, når de har brug for det. Der er ingen 24-timers ventetid på at "bekræfte" en selvudelukkelse. Det første skridt er en 24-timers udelukkelse i sig selv. Dette er med vilje og sikrer, at brugerne træffer en velovervejet beslutning, ikke en beslutning drevet af et øjebliks midlertidig frustration.
Jeg forstår, at casinoet skal være sikkert mod spillere, der ønsker at lukke deres konto efter et stort tab, eller i et øjebliks hede, og derefter genåbne det et par dage senere, hvilket forårsager en masse problemer og unødvendigt administrativt arbejde for casinoet. Men i tilfælde af ludomani er dette et meget uvenligt system. Hovedsageligt fordi spilleren inden for nævnte tid nemt kan få tilbagefald og i stedet for yderligere udelukkelse, indbetale og spille i stedet. Selvom dette system beskytter casinoet mod humørsyge spillere, gør det det ekstremt svært for ludomaner at stoppe sig selv fra yderligere tab.
Efter selv at have prøvet systemet - og blevet tvunget til at logge ind på min stadig aktive konto igen efter de 24 timers afkølingsperiode - kan jeg også sige, at dette er meget farligt for en ludoman, da intet på kontoen er blevet deaktiveret, og jeg kunne indbetale og spille lige så nemt som at gå direkte efter muligheden for selvudelukkelse.
11-03-2025 13:39 → 12-03-2025 13:02
14-03-2025 22:13 → 15-03-2025 22:46
2025-03-17 12:33:47 → 2025-03-18 12:34:20
2025-03-19 13:01:11 → 2025-03-20 13:01:43
2025-03-20 13:02:01 → 2025-06-18 23:24:08
For os er dette et klart tegn på en spiller, der kæmper med selvudelukkelsessystemet. Hvis der kun var et eller to forsøg, ville jeg være tilbøjelig til at være enig i, at spilleren ikke har lagt en rimelig indsats i selvudelukkelsesprocessen. Men 5 mislykkede forsøg er alt for mange til at ignorere. Desværre, hvor du ser nogen selvudelukke sig selv i 24 timer, først og derefter komme tilbage for at spille som en almindelig gæst, ser vi en ludoman, der forsøger at udelukke sig selv, men ikke er i stand til at gøre det på grund af det uintuitive system.
Hvad angår refusion, er vores politik klar. Når væddemål er placeret, er de endelige, uanset om det er en sejr eller et tab. Den politik står fast. Vi ville ikke have forhindret ham i at udbetale en gevinst, bare fordi han ikke udelukkede sig selv i længere tid. Det samme gælder i den anden retning.
Dette er endnu et modstridende punkt, da ludomaner ikke er i stand til at modstå og simpelthen stoppe med at indbetale/spille. Derfor, hvis kontoen ikke er blevet lukket efter et rimeligt tidsrum, som er angivet i kasinoets T&C, skal indbetalingerne refunderes fuldt ud - dog - minus eventuelle udbetalinger og gevinster, der er sket ind imellem. Spilleren skulle have været blokeret på det tidspunkt, ude af stand til at spille, derfor heller ikke i stand til at indbetale penge samt indløse eventuelle gevinster.
6.11 Hvis du ønsker at lukke din konto hos os, bedes du sende en e-mail fra din registrerede e-mail-adresse til vores kundesupportafdeling via links på webstedet.
Spilleren har endda fulgt denne casinoperiode og sendte en anmodning om kontolukning den 11. marts. I stedet for at lukke kontoen, fik spilleren besked fra supporten om at bruge in-account systemet. Selv efter denne standard skulle kontoen have været lukket inden for de næste par dage. Dette skete ikke, og selve lukningen skete kun en måned senere, hvilket er årsagen til, at vi beder om tilbagebetaling af indbetalinger foretaget mellem den 14. marts og frem til kontolukningen den 14. april. Selvom du tydeligt har angivet, at ingen tilbagebetaling er mulig, så vil jeg respektere din beslutning, hvis der ikke er noget, der kan gøres for at ændre din mening.
Vi tager ansvarligt spil alvorligt, men det er en tovejs gade. Brugeren skal også tage noget ansvar. herunder at vælge en længere udelukkelsesperiode, hvis det er det, der er brug for. Der vil ikke blive udstedt refusion.
Jeg er enig i, at der også skal lægges noget ansvar på spillerne, og casinoet skal beskyttes mod humørsyge spillere og frie spillere, der forsøger at misbruge politikkerne for ansvarligt spil til risikofrit spil. Men i dette tilfælde mener vi, at spilleren gjorde alt, hvad han kunne for at udelukke sig selv fra Rainbet Casino, men på grund af systemforhindringer og kasinoet, der ikke overholdt deres egne vilkår og betingelser (6.11), var han ikke i stand til at gøre det.
For at lukke dette af: Hvis Rainbet Casino mener, at proceduren på deres side er korrekt, skete der ingen fejl, og der er ikke plads til yderligere diskussion - eller endda forhandling af i det mindste en delvis tilbagebetaling - mener jeg, at det ikke er nogen mening i at holde klagen åben yderligere. Som sådan vil vi lukke denne sag som 'uløst' fra vores side, hvilket vil påvirke casinosikkerhedsvurderingen, og jeg kunne kun anbefale Woolysheep at rejse problemet med Anjouan Gaming Authority. Jeg venter på RainBet Teams svar for at give dem en chance for at adressere dette indlæg. Men på nuværende tidspunkt tror jeg ikke, vi vil finde et fælles grundlag, da vores synspunkter er for langt væk på de modsatte sider af spektret.
Thank you for the detailed explanation, RainBet Team, much appreciated. Unfortunately, it seems like we have reached an impasse with this case.
While the email process can be slow at times, we’ve put an automatic self-exclusion system in place to help users take a break whenever they need. There is no 24-hour wait to "confirm" a self-exclusion. The first step is a 24-hour exclusion itself. This is intentional and ensures users are making a considered decision, not one driven by a moment of temporary frustration.
I understand that the casino needs to be safe against players who wants to close their account after a hefty loss, or in a heat of the moment, then re-open it few days later, causing a lot of issues and unnecessary administrative work for the casino. But in case of gambling addiction, this is very unfriendly system. Mainly because within said time the player can easily relapse and instead of further exclusion, deposit and play instead. While this system protects the casino against moody players, it is making it extremely hard for gambling addicts to stop themselves from further losses.
After trying the system myself - and being forced to re-log into my still active account after the 24 hours cool off period - I can also say that this is very dangerous for a gambling addict, as nothing in the account has been deactivated and I could deposit and play as easily as going straight for the self-exclusion option.
2025-03-11 13:39 → 2025-03-12 13:02
2025-03-14 22:13 → 2025-03-15 22:46
2025-03-17 12:33:47 → 2025-03-18 12:34:20
2025-03-19 13:01:11 → 2025-03-20 13:01:43
2025-03-20 13:02:01 → 2025-06-18 23:24:08
To us, this is a clear sign of a player struggling with the self-exclusion system. If there was only one or two tries, I would be inclined to agree that the player has not put reasonable effort into the self-exclusion process. But 5 failed attempts are way too many to ignore. Unfortunately, where you see someone self-excluding themselves for 24 hours only then coming back to play as a regular guest, we see a gambling addict trying to self-exclude, but being unable to do so due to the unintuitive system.
As for refunds, our policy is clear. Once bets are placed, they are final, whether it’s a win or a loss. That policy stands. We wouldn’t have stopped him from cashing out a win just because he didn’t self-exclude for longer. The same applies in the other direction.
This is another conflicting point, as gambling addicts are not able to resist and simply stop depositing/playing. Therefore if the account has not been closed after a reasonable period of time that is set in the casino's T&C, the deposits should be refunded in full - however - minus any withdrawals and winnings that happened in between. The player should have been blocked by that time, unable to play, therefore also unable to deposit money as well as to cash in any winnings.
6.11 Should you wish to close your account with us, please send an email from your Registered Email Address to our Customer Support Department via the links on the Website.
The player has even followed this casino term, and sent an account closure request on 11th March. Instead of closing the account, the player was told by the support to use the in-account system. Even by this standard, the account should have been closed within next few days. This did not happen and the actual closure happened only a month later, which is the reason why we are asking for the refund of deposits made between 14th March until the account closure on 14th April. Although you have clearly stated that no refunds are possible, so I will respect your decision, if there is nothing that can be done to change your opinion.
We take responsible gambling seriously, but it’s a two-way street. The user has to take some responsibility too. including choosing a longer exclusion period if that’s what’s needed. No refunds will be issued.
I agree that some responsibility needs to be placed on the players as well, and the casino needs to be protected against moody players and free betters trying to abuse the responsible gambling policies for risk-free play. But in this case, we believe the player did everything he could to self-exclude himself from the Rainbet Casino, but due to the system hurdles and casino not adhering to their own Terms & Conditions (6.11) he was unable to do so.
To close this off: If Rainbet Casino believes the procedure on their end is correct, no errors happened and there is no room for further discussion - or even negotiating at least a partial refund - I believe there is no point in keeping the complaint opened any further. As such, we will close this case as 'unresolved' on our end, which will impact the casino safety rating, and I could only recommend Woolysheep to raise the issue with the Anjouan Gaming Authority. I'll wait for the RainBet Team's reply to give them a chance to address this post. But at this point I do not believe we will find a common ground, as our view points are too far away on the opposite sides of the spectrum.