Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeCasino
As much as I would like to sit here all day long each day and debate the morality of my decisions, it's simply not practical. The origin of this thread came from two players who complained their funds were removed from their Neteller accounts. This money was never meant to be credited in the first place but I did the right thing and put it back into their Casino account which would have been the default situation had our software supported our T&C's.
I can't help but feel that I'm bearing the brunt of your anger regarding things many have done before me and as much as I've tried to appease the lot of you, it's in the end, impossible to please everyone. As important as these issues are, this thread is taking up far too much of my time and since there is no governing body here other than CM, I'm forced to leave this in his capable hands.
1. I have told you that I will not initiate Neteller chargebacks in the future for any reason other than fraud. I will not change our T&C's to restrict our ability to do this. If you're not defrauding our Casino, you have nothing to worry about. Fraud = multiple accounts, using other people's accounts, etc. If I need to define Fraud for you then we have a much larger problem here.
2. I have put the players' money back into their Casino account and allowed them to play out their wagering requirements. Perhaps Mohammed and Anders aren't doing backflips over this but they are happy with the resolution and have said so in the thread. What more would like me to do exactly?
3. I have agreed to date our T&C's and to put a note on our index page notifying when recent changes have been made with a link to the new terms. I will not make this a massive road-sign on the index page though. It will sit around where the No-US Players and the Powered by Microgaming logos are. If this is unnaceptable to you I'm sorry but it's more than anyone else is doing.
4. I have not paid out Jens because she blatantly broke our T&C's, made one bet, and cashed out. This is classic promo abuse and our terms ecist to protect us from just this kind of player. Why should Jens be the only player to become an exception to this rule? Though my decision here was solely based on breaking the T&C's, I'm even less inclined to make an exception since she decided to drag her issue into an angry mob in the hopes you'd all agree with her by default. Lastly, assuming our terms are like every other MGS Casino is a ridiculous excuse for not reading them. I notice how now you have our terms under a microscope but had you read them in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation. My answer is no and it's final.
5. Regarding downloading a casino first and then registering several days later, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. It's common sense that before you deposit, you should read the terms and conditions. I think it's a real stretch to think that someone would download our software, spend the time studying our T&C's, but then not even registering until several days after. I feel I've done enough to protect the players' interests if the terms are valid at the time of fun player registration. I am not going to email every fun player about changes to the terms. Also, I have a fun account with at least 20 Casinos and none of them have ever done this either. Not only that but none of them as far as I have seen are notifying people of T&C changes anywhere on the site. Nevermind the index page.
This has gone on long enough. Some of you have made some very good points and suggestions that I am going to enact. However, I am not going to spend my time each day going through this thread and becoming a doormat for the Casino industry. I think it's time for CM to step in here and decide what he thinks should be done. We're an accredited Casino here and the actions I've taken are the final actions that will be taken in this issue. If he feels that we shouldn't be accredited after this, so be it. My decisions are final and that is literally the end of this discussion. Again, I appreciate all the civilized input I've received and your suggestions will be enacted next week.
Thanks and good luck,
Josh. |
4. Jens,
Yes, this play is what casinos consider "bonus abuse", however, Bryan has clear rules as to what is expected of an eccredited casino. Unless the single bet play was specifically against the T & C, this alone cannot be used as a reason for non-payment, This leaves the issue of withdrawing early. Jens says she didn't understand that particular term, which she clearly read BEFORE depositing, so there is a clear case of player ineptitude in not getting CS to explain to her what this meant BEFORE withdrawing.
Jens is guilty of playing to win with the SUB, rather than lose it playing the games. This is EXACTLY what happened with Fortune Lounge, they confiscated winnings from a number of players that employed this aggressive betting strategy on the SUB, however, Fortune Lounge lost their case for doing this, and were pretty much told to pay players who had not committed actual fraud (multiple accounts, false details etc), so why should Prime be any different? No exception was made for Fortune Lounge, so I don't see why one should be made for Prime.
Confiscating winnings is an EXTREME sanction that has become all too common nowdays. Yesterday, I played Blackjack at another MG casino, howeve the dealer hardly ever busted out on 15 or 16, but time and time again got 20 or 21, and I lost hand after hand that I should have won. The deck behaved as though it was a "10 poor" shoe, which is against the "shuffle every hand" rules. Now, this looked to me like "deposit abuse" by the virtual dealer, and normally is treated like "bad luck", with the dealer allowed to keep the winnings. Now, if players started acting more like casinos do when they don't like OUR style of play, we would be making chargebacks (our equivalent of confiscating winnings after the bet was made and accepted) whenever we had a truly unbelievable session, and naturally WE would get to be the judge, jury, and executioner as to what constituted "rigged" as opposed to "unlucky".
5.
To say that registering a few days after registration is "ridiculous" is itself ridiculous. Granted, the casinos would rather we deposited immediately, and preferrably lost, but in the real world there ARE many players who register days later. Naturally, given what a "ball-ache" downloading an MG casino is, theyb will read and digest the T & C BEFORE deciding whether they want to play, and this is why it is important for casinos to place expiry dates on terms, such that players can immediately tell how long what they have read is GUARANTEED to be valid for.
Promotion Abuse.
Here is a case with Fortune Lounge that closely resembles the case of Jens:-
I have queried your account and I can confirm the following. The withdrawal that you requested has been cancelled as your casino account has been locked due to promotional abuse. They have advised us that due to suspicious wagering by you on 100 Play Power Poker-Aces and Faces game in particular, the account was closed and will remain closed. Your game play was highly unnatural and improbable for any bona fide player with intent to play with us in future. Similarly, placing all your money on one single bet is also highly unlikely for any serious gambler.
For this reason the account has been locked and will remain locked.
Highlighted is the exact strategy Jens used on Roulette.
The later cashout was a mistake, and against the terms and conditions, however a good casino should give the player the chance to fulfill
WR by returning the funds to the account, not use a player oversight as an excuse to void winnings.
The advantage play itself is NO EXCUSE for voiding winnings, so in effect, the casino are still of the opinion that should any player make the mistake of withdrawing before
WR, despite the problems with the cashier page suggesting this is OK, should be given NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER, but suffer an instant confiscation.
Bryan's explanation as to WHY this practice earned a spell in the rogue pit was this:-
The problem with the term "promotional abuse" is that it's too subjective. The casino looks at this sort of behavior as abuse - the player looks at this as "beating the house". Don't get me wrong, the casino has every right in the world to pick and chose who their customers are. But once the casino makes the offer, accepts the bet, and the player plays according to the terms and conditions meeting the wagering requirements, then the casino ought to honor the winnings. It's the casino that is responsible for making the rules. If they make mistakes by forgetting to say that making a single bet on Blackjack is not allowed, then it should be allowed. It is not the responsibility of the player to try and guess what the casino considers "abuse".
Subjective language has no place in enforcing rules. Casinos can enforce policies by disallowing these players access to the casino, or deny bonuses in the future, but it is unacceptable to garnish winnings after the player has met the wagering requirements of the bonus.
We understand that the casino wishes to bring in new players who will remain loyal by them offering bonuses. But the bottom line is that the casino writes the terms for these bonuses, the casino should be expected to write terms that protect it from players they don't want.
I understand that during this period, they was a high level of player fraud. But advantage players are not fraudsters - if you are tuna fishing, you don't kill the dolphines in the tuna net.
Advantage players, avoid these casinos at all costs.
This leaves as the ONLY justification for voiding Jens' winnings the fact that she withdrew before completing the full
WR in the mistaken belief that EZBonus works the same in every casino, allowing this to blind her to the possibility that some casinos may intend otherwise.
Bryan goes on to say how casinos should be reacting to "abusive" play:-
Quote:
|
by disallowing these players access to the casino, or deny bonuses in the future
|
It is clear that Jens is an "advantage player", and not a player the casino would want to offer future bonuses to, but on the other hand, there is no obligation on players to lose with their SUB, they have every right to try their best to beat the house within the rules of the game.
If Prime wish to continue to confiscate winnings when players slip up, they should not feel hurt when their own slipups are met with such "draconian" action by forum members - it works both ways.