Bookmaker.eu fails to disable my account after I tell them I need my account permanently disabled

[dsg1980]

Hi all,

Full disclosure, I have already submitted a complaint via the complaint form here at BMR, but I was hopeful to hear others opinion on this situation as well.

I have been a long time player at Bookmaker.eu for many years now, and while it has never been my favorite sportsbook, they have always acted reasonably and in relatively good faith.

Some background; I am a compulsive gambler with an active addiction that I currently seek treatment for. I am a work in progress but it is really time for me to kick this once and for all as I have a lot at stake at home with two young kids. On Wednesday, 7/17/24, I played and lost on Bookmaker.eu. I spoke with support and requested that my account be permanently disabled due to an uncontrolled gambling problem. I was told that they do not permanently disable accounts, but that they would temporarily disable it within 24 hours. Not only do I think it's wrong to not honor my request for a life time exclusion, but to keep the account open another 24 hours is also mind boggling to me.

On Friday, 7/19/2024 (48+ hours later), I tried to log in to my BM account and was surprised to see that I was still able to. I stupidly proceeded to deposit and lose $1,990 between Friday 7/20/24, and Sunday 7/22/24. I reached back out to support to ask them again to disable my account permanently and asked them why they did not honor my request when I first asked on Wednesday 7/17/24. This time, they immediately disabled my account. I asked again why my request was not honored on 7/17/24, and their response was "We truly apologize for the inconvenience, at this moment I do not handle further details on this."

I'm not looking for a quick buck here, as the amount that I have lost over the years dwarfs the $1,990, but I do think it's all kinds of messed up that my request was ignored, and I was able to dump another $1,990. In a perfect world, I'd like for BM to refund the $1,990 and honor my request for a lifetime exclusion and move on. Are my requests reasonable?

 

[pragmatic]

Honest question. What does Self-exclude really accomplish in the offshore world, when anybody can find another 100+ online books?

What does it take to create & fund a new Account, maybe 3-5 minutes?

 

[sportsbettor5]

Honest question. What does Self-exclude really accomplish in the offshore world, when anybody can find another 100+ online books?

What does it take to create & fund a new Account, maybe 3-5 minutes?

Psychology is an odd thing though. A lot of things we do are habit. Betting at BM might just be more comfortable at some level, for this particular player.

 

[pragmatic]

Psychology is an odd thing though. A lot of things we do are habit. Betting at BM might just be more comfortable at some level, for this particular player.

Sure, I get the concept of habit, comfort, routine, etc.

But this isn't 1998, when you could self-exclude from a land-based slots parlor --- and the nearest alternative was 350 miles away.

Today, when everybody has a smartphone, Self-exclude doesn't mean much.........unless people are willing to "self-exclude" their wandering fingertips.

 

[bravenewworld1105]

Sure, I get the concept of habit, comfort, routine, etc.

But this isn't 1998, when you could self-exclude from a land-based slots parlor --- and the nearest alternative was 350 miles away.

Today, when everybody has a smartphone, Self-exclude doesn't mean much.........unless people are willing to "self-exclude" their wandering fingertips.

This dude 100% works for Bookmaker

 

[sportsbettor5]

This dude 100% works for Bookmaker

LOL

 

[pragmatic]

This dude 100% works for Bookmaker

Or maybe I'm just big on personal responsibility.

 

[sportsbettor5]

Or maybe I'm just big on personal responsibility.

Oh, I thought he was talking about me.

Anyway, I've had an addiction to certain type of website (not what you're thinking) for which there are like three or four alternatives. I found that blocking the one I was most familiar with pretty much shut down the addiction---even though the alternatives were very similar.

So I think habit could play a role here.

 

[bravenewworld1105]

Or maybe I'm just big on personal responsibility.

Nearly all of your posts are you being the spokesperson for BM. Always coming to their defense or providing an explanation as to why they're doing objectively indefensible things.

 

[pragmatic]

Nearly all of your posts are you being the spokesperson for BM. Always coming to their defense or providing an explanation as to why they're doing objectively indefensible things.

Before jumping to any conclusions, I like to understand how/why things happen.

I guess some people take that as "You didn't instantly take my side, so you must be on the other side!"

 

[rolandcorts]

dsg1980, there's tons of places for you to gamble and lose online. You're going to have to manage your addiction yourself.

Your screenshots don't really show anything. You just keep asking the same question and getting told the same answer. Also, if you had won we know you wouldn't be here complaining. You're looking for a scapegoat. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people in these situations.

 

[pragmatic]

Numbers from a 2013 paper.

My hot take -- Self-exclusion programs are a scam. They simply allow casinos (and governments) to present the appearance/illusion of giving a crap. But the programs really aren't effective. Seventy percent!

"However, 70 % of self-excluders reported gambling in casinos or elsewhere during their ban and 11–55 % of gamblers broke their contract. Those who returned did so an average of six times. High drop-out rates amongst participants in the study may mean that these figures underestimate the proportion of individuals who broke their agreements."

Review of Self-exclusion from Gambling Venues as an Intervention for Problem Gambling - PMC

Self-exclusion programs are required to be provided by gambling operators in many international jurisdictions in an attempt to provide an option for those who have gambling problems to avoid further gambling. However, minimal robust and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[rolandcorts]

It's like trying to self-exclude from sugar or liquor.

 

[BigJay]

Before jumping to any conclusions,

 

[dsg1980]

Honest question. What does Self-exclude really accomplish in the offshore world, when anybody can find another 100+ online books?

What does it take to create & fund a new Account, maybe 3-5 minutes?

I have yet to find many reputable offshore books that still accept credit cards. I don't know of any others that do, nor do I want to know of any. I have successfully self excluded from a handful of other offshore books with no pushback, and as a result, my gambling has been cut back considerably.

Despite all this, just because something is easy to do, doesn't mean that it should justify predatory behavior. If I am requesting my account to be permanently disabled due to an addiction, it should be honored, point blank. At the very least, they should disable the account like they said they would.

dsg1980, there's tons of places for you to gamble and lose online. You're going to have to manage your addiction yourself.

Your screenshots don't really show anything. You just keep asking the same question and getting told the same answer. Also, if you had won we know you wouldn't be here complaining. You're looking for a scapegoat. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people in these situations.

My initial screenshot is simply proof that I was told that my account would be disabled within 24 hours, which it was not. I also wonder how this would have been handled from their end if I had won. Though I don't know for certain, I wouldn't be shocked if they seized those winnings.

Oh, I thought he was talking about me.

Anyway, I've had an addiction to certain type of website (not what you're thinking) for which there are like three or four alternatives. I found that blocking the one I was most familiar with pretty much shut down the addiction---even though the alternatives were very similar.

So I think habit could play a role here.

It's evident from some other responses that some people don't understand how an addiction works. I understand because it really makes no sense to even the addict. It is a compulsive behavior. There is an element of accountability involved, but requests for accounts to be closed should be honored without pushback.

Sure, I get the concept of habit, comfort, routine, etc.

But this isn't 1998, when you could self-exclude from a land-based slots parlor --- and the nearest alternative was 350 miles away.

Today, when everybody has a smartphone, Self-exclude doesn't mean much.........unless people are willing to "self-exclude" their wandering fingertips.

I understand this position, but it doesn't justify it to be acceptable behavior to not honor my request for my account to be closed.

 

[dsg1980]

To

Or maybe I'm just big on personal responsibility.

To add to this. Requesting an account to be disabled permanently because I am admitted gambling addict is part of taking responsibility.

 

[spicnspan]

Bad on Bookmaker here. This is a reasonable request in a world where these platforms are designed to suck every cent out of you.

OP, I hope you get whatever help you need on this issue. Godspeed to you.

 

[thefix]

To

To add to this. Requesting an account to be disabled permanently because I am admitted gambling addict is part of taking responsibility.

Signing up on a gambling website regardless of the reason is yet another step in the wrong direction toward your responsible handling of said problem. Try adding software to your computer that can block your access to your favorite gambling sites and let your kids set the password, they will forget the password and the problem solved itself.

 

[dsg1980]

Numbers from a 2013 paper.

My hot take -- Self-exclusion programs are a scam. They simply allow casinos (and governments) to present the appearance/illusion of giving a crap. But the programs really aren't effective. Seventy percent!

"However, 70 % of self-excluders reported gambling in casinos or elsewhere during their ban and 11–55 % of gamblers broke their contract. Those who returned did so an average of six times. High drop-out rates amongst participants in the study may mean that these figures underestimate the proportion of individuals who broke their agreements."

I guess that’s where our outlooks differ. I read that as 30% of people were successful. I realize it’s probably significantly less than 30% but the point remains that if it was successful for even 10% of people, then it’s effective to some degree.