Agree on 1 & 2, and you're right that the help/therapy being by far the most important.

I don't think there's any way to know what Red Kings moral obligation was without knowing more about exactly what their exchange was.

what you are trying to do is a common loophole in a gaming industry. If the company is regulated in UK/Malta you will most likely go on with it as its extremaly risky for them to let you contact the Gambling Commision (quite easy to lose a licence over that)

if you undoubtfully mailed them with your gambling problem you will probably succeed

also most likely youre just a scammer who found a loophole to freeroll the casino, but thats none of my business

I'm a manager of a high st bookmakers where we have numerous self-excludees that are not allowed on the premises whatsoever for the duration of the agreement. However, if the excludee managed to gamble without being noticed/recognised, it is down to the excludee themselves and the company is not liable for any losses. So, regardless of whether your account should've been closed there and then, the likelihood of you getting your money back are, in my opinion, 0%.

There are lower expectations of the success a betting shop, where people bet anonymously, will have in preventing self-excluders from gambling. Even in a bookmakers you are still required to take reasonable steps even though it will be possible for gamblers to circumvent them.

With remote operators where customers have to login to an account it is straightforward to ensure that the particular account doesn't get used and so there is a greater duty on the operator.

Yes online it should be more difficult but compulsive gamblers always look for ways around it. If RedKings were to accept liability in this case, it would open up a huge can of worms where you'd have no end of claims being made. You'd even have players who have created other accounts after self excluding saying these accounts should've been flagged up etc etc. At the end of the day, the operators should do their utmost to prevent these people from gambling however the onus always should be on the individual themselves

There is a big difference between the case of an excluded individual creating a new account, the gambler has taken an affirmative action that most likely violates T&C's if not outright committing fraud, and the case of the operator failing to take action on the customers request for self exclusion, which could rise to the level of gross negligence.

i can bet that you will get this money back once you ask support if a Gambling Comission can arbitrate this case
lol

Hey. The other day I was playing on Redkings poker at 0.50/1 and 1/2 after a while I got disconnected in the middle of a hand with the nut flush on the river with only a little bit to call. I tried to reconnect but i couldn't see any tables in the lobby and my money was not in my account. It took about an hour after I contacted support about it until I could see my money back in my account and I could start playing again. But the problem is I never got the money back from all the tables I was playing and the money i lost in those pot. I emailed them about it, they said they would investigate it, but sometimes it happened when they are running maintenance at the same time. It's been couple days now and I tried to contact them again and they don't answer me anymore. The same problem happened the day after and lost money again in the same way. I hope some people can see that and don't make the same mistake that i made, and play on redkings poker. I hope I'll get that money refund cause this is not professional and ethic from a poker network to not pay for their mistakes. I'll tell you if I finally get my refund but if I don't, I strongly suggest to players who wanted to deposit on that website not to do it. Thanks.

I would say morally that the site has a duty to immediately close an account when requested by a customer. Why should he have to say specific words in a specific order to be taken seriously? They should assume the worst and close the account as soon as they get a request to close it. Then there should be a process where the site does a review before reopening the account if the customer asks to reopen it but it should be closed for a mandatory period whenever it is requested to be closed.

I'm guessing the OP asked for it to be closed, the site looked at the account and saw the guy was a whale and decided to delay in order to make a few dollars more...in this case 20K more.

I see it completely differently. The words really matter.

If it's just a standard business request ("please close my account immediately"), it seems like a few business days would be standard procedure. If it's "I have a gambling problem", or "I would like to self-exclude", that's entirely different, and the account should be locked immediately. Everything depends on what was said.

He doesn't get to free-roll for a few business days after a routine request.

He doesn't get to freeroll. If he deposits and wins after asking for account closure, he gets none of the winnings...but he would get his deposit back. Seems very simple to me.

If gambling sites really want to help problem gamblers, they need to assume every request for immediate closure is a worst case/problem gambler scenario.

The truth is they don't care. They get most of their profit from degenerates.

You are assuming that they wouldn't have paid had he won. There's no reason to believe that. But whatever the chances of a payout, he's still trying to freeroll by requesting all his money back.
The company is in the business of providing gambling. Did they break any rules here?

That's quite an assumption you're making about not caring. In my experience, gambling establishments are very concerned about dealing with problem gambling correctly.

Wow, you're living in another dimension.

Well they need to appear compassionate, when in fact, they prey off us degens.

Take your losses like a man OP