Barred from Grosvenor Casinos

[Jamier-Host]

So put yourself in the position of a Grosvenor decision maker, looks at your history, multiple self exlclusions + evidently some compulsive personality traits (no disrespect, this is how customers are looked at from a RG perspective) the downside to allowing you back in is actually huge ... [snip] ... To them, as business people the downsides of your membership would far, far outweigh the upsides and therefore were I in Grosvenor's shoes I also would never take the risks of allowing you back as a member.

Very much agree with this and would make the same call.

It's a while since i worked in the gambling industry (more online than offline), but back then I would struggle to get my point across sometimes about making decisions where the company would potentially lose out due to what i thought was a clearcut RG risk. I'm glad to have seen this slowly changing from afar, even if it's more about being forced by risk of repercussions rather than any sense of doing the right thing.

Maybe you've just fallen victim of the changing landscape unfairly here, but i reckon you should be lowering your expectations somewhat on getting reinstated.

[arbboy]

Given some of the 7 figure fines handing out to online companiiees in recent years for bad corporate behaviour RG wise i wouldn't be touching your membership with a bargepole as a casino with your previous form. 

[shmeigle]

Judging by the majority of responses ( GC ) I have received since I asked for help I can understand why my situation is as it is.

Me saying that you guys have probably got it right in terms of understanding Grosvenor's position does not mean I agree but as you share opinion I am failing in getting my point across to you as I am to them.
That and also MAYBE you both( G and GC ) don't believe me.

Wanting or taking a break from gambling does not mean you have a problem. Maybe you realise or feel like you are on a losing streak and you want to reset.
Maybe you have some financial obligations like a wedding or holiday and you need to prioritise your finances which means putting a hobby or pastime on the back burner. 
This is normal.

Lets take a moment to go off topic and talk about smoking and smokers as an example to try make a point.
I and im sure you might (at least a few of you ) have known a few ppl over the years try to quit smoking. Not every quitter but I know and have heard of a few people who kept and made sure they had a box of cigs in their home. This might seem weird for someone trying to quit something to have what they are trying to quit so easily accessible but just having it there, and knowing if they really wanted a cig they could, this helped them mentally get through quitting. Other people just decide I want to stop and boom, Cold turkey they just stop.

I am one of the cig box in the house people metaphorically speaking.
When I wanted a break I quit. To make sure I quit for a long enough time period that I wanted, in other words no changing my mind next week or next month I used to self exclude knowing full well that for the next 6months I would not be allowed in the casino. Any casino. Its PEACE OF MIND. I don't have to argue with myself, say no to myself, debate with myself, nothing. Its done. Iv signed a piece of paper and for 6 months its time to try some new hobbies.

Is there anything wrong with anything I have said ^^^^^ ?

The main point of this post is to get one message across. To explain why I would self exclude. If we can get past this point then we can move on to self exclusion frequency

[Marky147]

Think I need to self exclude from the curry house, so I can save for Vegas next year.

[Woodsey]

Judging by the majority of responses ( GC ) I have received since I asked for help I can understand why my situation is as it is.

Me saying that you guys have probably got it right in terms of understanding Grosvenor's position does not mean I agree but as you share opinion I am failing in getting my point across to you as I am to them.
That and also MAYBE you both( G and GC ) don't believe me.

Wanting or taking a break from gambling does not mean you have a problem. Maybe you realise or feel like you are on a losing streak and you want to reset.
Maybe you have some financial obligations like a wedding or holiday and you need to prioritise your finances which means putting a hobby or pastime on the back burner. 
This is normal.

Lets take a moment to go off topic and talk about smoking and smokers as an example to try make a point.
I and im sure you might (at least a few of you ) have known a few ppl over the years try to quit smoking. Not every quitter but I know and have heard of a few people who kept and made sure they had a box of cigs in their home. This might seem weird for someone trying to quit something to have what they are trying to quit so easily accessible but just having it there, and knowing if they really wanted a cig they could, this helped them mentally get through quitting. Other people just decide I want to stop and boom, Cold turkey they just stop.

I am one of the cig box in the house people metaphorically speaking.
When I wanted a break I quit. To make sure I quit for a long enough time period that I wanted, in other words no changing my mind next week or next month I used to self exclude knowing full well that for the next 6months I would not be allowed in the casino. Any casino. Its PEACE OF MIND. I don't have to argue with myself, say no to myself, debate with myself, nothing. Its done. Iv signed a piece of paper and for 6 months its time to try some new hobbies.

Is there anything wrong with anything I have said ^^^^^ ?

The main point of this post is to get one message across. To explain why I would self exclude. If we can get past this point then we can move on to self exclusion frequency

Mate, I self exclude myself from the casinos all the time when I can’t afford it or when I’ve been a dick and gamble more than I can afford. I go back on the odd occasion when I can, the difference with my self exclusion is I do it myself and simply don’t go to the casinos without asking them to block me going in.

If you really didn’t have a gambling problem you could do the same, the fact you have had to get the casinos to block you suggests you do, the only thing that’s surprising here is that you have some casino’s willing to let you back in.

[arbboy]

Judging by the majority of responses ( GC ) I have received since I asked for help I can understand why my situation is as it is.

Me saying that you guys have probably got it right in terms of understanding Grosvenor's position does not mean I agree but as you share opinion I am failing in getting my point across to you as I am to them.
That and also MAYBE you both( G and GC ) don't believe me.

Wanting or taking a break from gambling does not mean you have a problem. Maybe you realise or feel like you are on a losing streak and you want to reset.
Maybe you have some financial obligations like a wedding or holiday and you need to prioritise your finances which means putting a hobby or pastime on the back burner. 
This is normal.

Lets take a moment to go off topic and talk about smoking and smokers as an example to try make a point.
I and im sure you might (at least a few of you ) have known a few ppl over the years try to quit smoking. Not every quitter but I know and have heard of a few people who kept and made sure they had a box of cigs in their home. This might seem weird for someone trying to quit something to have what they are trying to quit so easily accessible but just having it there, and knowing if they really wanted a cig they could, this helped them mentally get through quitting. Other people just decide I want to stop and boom, Cold turkey they just stop.

I am one of the cig box in the house people metaphorically speaking.
When I wanted a break I quit. To make sure I quit for a long enough time period that I wanted, in other words no changing my mind next week or next month I used to self exclude knowing full well that for the next 6months I would not be allowed in the casino. Any casino. Its PEACE OF MIND. I don't have to argue with myself, say no to myself, debate with myself, nothing. Its done. Iv signed a piece of paper and for 6 months its time to try some new hobbies.

Is there anything wrong with anything I have said ^^^^^ ?

The main point of this post is to get one message across. To explain why I would self exclude. If we can get past this point then we can move on to self exclusion frequency

Mate, I self exclude myself from the casinos all the time when I can’t afford it or when I’ve been a dick and gamble more than I can afford. I go back on the odd occasion when I can, the difference with my self exclusion is I do it myself and simply don’t go to the casinos without asking them to block me going in.

If you really didn’t have a gambling problem you could do the same, the fact you have had to get the casinos to block you suggests you do, the only thing that’s surprising here is that you have some casino’s willing to let you back in.

Bold part is the key area you are missing.  What you actually think and do doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the casino's decision.

[4KSuited]

I completely accept your rationale for using self-exclusion. Honestly, I do. I don't know you from Adam, but I'm fully prepared to accept your word on this. I know you'll believe me, even though you don't know me from Adam. So, now that we've put that to bed....

The problem is that you used self-exclusion multiple times without thinking about the implications. Several other posters have made this point, and it's the one that you still seem to be struggling to accept - that from Grosvenor's (and you should count yourself lucky that it's only them) POV, you're flying a huge red flag.

I suspect that none of us that have posted on this thread actually know you irl, so you couldn't really find a more objective audience. So there isn't anything personal about the responses (apart from one exasperated post, perhaps), and you DO seem to be taking it personally.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I'm not really sure that your cigarette analogy is comparable.  The equivalent situation would be if you'd asked every retailer in the country to stop selling you cigarettes, and then asked them to start selling again at a later date.

Having cigarettes available in the house and choosing whether or not to use them is something entirely within your own control, rather than where you've asked for a 3rd party to intervene to prevent you from doing so.

[TightEnd]

I work for a company that was audited by the GC earlier this year. All operators are. 

the landscape has become much tougher, responsible gambling is a huge focus and fines levied across the industry have run into seven figures

Not only is it entirely the correct decision to not overturn a ban, I am convinced that if any of those that have yet you back saw this thread they would re-instate the ban immediately. As i work for one, know who you are and know this information, it is causing me a problem!

Just from a risk reward perspective their revenue from you might be hundred or thousands who knows how much you might lose, but the potential fine and business impact if they are wrong and subsequent problems you face are down to problem gambling and its discovered on their next audit, the fine will far far outweigh that

As everyone is saying, self exclusions and responsible gambling initiatives are not designed to provide short term panaceas for whatever problems an individual is facing, hence they are usually long term.

Multiple use of self-exclusions is as it should be, one of the biggest red flags of them all

[Longines]

Me saying that you guys have probably got it right in terms of understanding Grosvenor's position does not mean I agree but as you share opinion I am failing in getting my point across to you as I am to them.

Feels like we're going in circles. I think we all understand your point of view. You thought using self exclusion multiple times was a measured and appropriate mechanism to control your gambling. You think it demonstrates a very small likelihood you are, or will become, a problem gambler.

Have I understood correctly?

[arbboy]

I play live cash twice a week in the big brand UK casinos and have been asked to prove 'proof of funds' to play.  When you say 'your cashdesk at the end of every session' is where i get my funds to play the managers look at you gone out. Most managers in casinos don't understand that there are people in casinos making a living/semi living.  One of them asking me what my job is and i said 'professional gambler/sports bettor' and she genuinely thought i was taking the piss and asked me what i really do.

Most managers have to tick all these GC/RG rules and don't understand the industry/game itself.  I know several people who have been barred for not proving proof of income when they play at relatively low stakes and have been casino regs for years.  I have never seen so many 'non lifer casino' types managing casinos as now.  So many just don't understand the game and this makes it even harder getting around these rules if you don't have a squeaky clean previous record.

These firms are literally taking as little a risk as possible right now across the board understandably because of the fines they know are coming their way potentially from the GC.

[SuuPRlim]

a friend of mine works for a big london casino relatively high up, he's told me stories about Arab tourists whove bern coming and losing £1m a yr for a decade they have had to restrict duevto proof of funds issues. If it was your own casino you'd do anything you could to keep this customer, but its not - its big chains with 9figure businesses to protect and layers of management who dont massively get the gaming industry but they know if they get it wrong on these issues they could easily lose thier job.

@shmiegle - i think the point you are missing from the majority of the replies is that if we (me grisvenor etc) 'believe' you or not is totally irrelevant to your situation. I can actually perfectly understand what you're saying and find the idea of you being easily able to reinstate at Grosvenor with little/no risk to yourself totally plausible...after all you're a member at other casinos and certainly don't seem to be triple mortgaging your house to gamble....

The thing is its actually nothing to do with that thier decision, you could prove beyond 0.1% doubt you dont have a problem with gambling and they still probably wont let you in. Like i said before you are just not worth the risk- uncapped downside pretty much after ypu self excluded twice... that's just a company perspective too - not even your biggest hurdle, put yourself in the shoes of the guy making this call to reinstate you, some thing goes wrong and thus blows up he's 100% gettimg sacked. Why risk it, your business is kind of irrevelent to the grand scheme of things.

Again none of this is personal, none of this is saying its fair, certainly none of this is suggesting you have a gambling problem. This is just facts of the case, I think your days at Grosvenor are probably over, unless you can find someone VERY high up happy to make a call like this, if you convince that person you've got no problem then you probably have a good shot. Middle-level or local level management though i honestly think you arw drawing close to dead.

[StuartHopkin]

Too many lovely posts now and he still isn't getting it!!

It is 100% obvious from this thread and your posts;

Shmeigle you have a gambling problem.

Forget getting back in to the casinos, ask to be permenantly barred from the rest and head on over to GA please, do not pass go.

Thx

[shmeigle]

Me saying that you guys have probably got it right in terms of understanding Grosvenor's position does not mean I agree but as you share opinion I am failing in getting my point across to you as I am to them.

Feels like we're going in circles. I think we all understand your point of view. You thought using self exclusion multiple times was a measured and appropriate mechanism to control your gambling. You think it demonstrates a very small likelihood you are, or will become, a problem gambler.

Have I understood correctly?

yes is my answer.

[shmeigle]

I completely accept your rationale for using self-exclusion. Honestly, I do. I don't know you from Adam, but I'm fully prepared to accept your word on this. I know you'll believe me, even though you don't know me from Adam. So, now that we've put that to bed....

The problem is that you used self-exclusion multiple times without thinking about the implications. So true.
Several other posters have made this point, and it's the one that you still seem to be struggling to accept - that from Grosvenor's (and you should count yourself lucky that it's only them) POV, you're flying a huge red flag.

I suspect that none of us that have posted on this thread actually know you irl, so you couldn't really find a more objective audience. Agreed
So there isn't anything personal about the responses (apart from one exasperated post, perhaps), and you DO seem to be taking it personally. Besides Scrote's post I am not taking it personally. I certainly don't think anyone has it in for me or is biased towards me. I feel like I am getting totally honest replies.