[mitch]

Linus

I do not know whether you are deliberately being disengenuous or are just confused.

A lot of casinos allow you to play their games with 'Play Money' their T&Cs emphasise you cannot withdraw any 'winnings'. Are you saying you would support a player who won money under these T&Cs and then asked the casino for the money?

This is the same issue, the casino said these games were excluded with a bonus, no ifs and buts about their T&Cs.

If this player had stopped after just playing the excluded games would you be argueing that she was entitled to her 'winnings'?

I can't believe any reasonable person would think so and legally it's no contest.

Assuming you are reasonable you must therefore agree she had no winnings after playing the excluded games and therefore started playing on allowed games with just her original stake and bonus.

The question of confiscation only arises if the player played excluded games and then subsequently went on to win money on allowed games.

This player didn't, she lost all her money on her first allowed game.

As I have already said, the question of whether the casino would have actually invoked its confiscation clause is purely hypothetical and a waste of this forums time.

Mitch