[maxd]

LATER: What follows is the original text of this post. As mentioned above I was barking up the wrong tree. Please see this post for the new improved take on this issue.
---------------

I have no clue where you're getting that from but whatever, your comments have been inappropriate and ill-informed so far so I'm not surprised that state of confusion persists.

As it happens I've been working on this LuckyAce thing for over a week now and have only recently made up my mind about what is and isn't going on here. Yes, sometimes it does take some of us a little time to come to conclusions what with the evidence gathering and due diligence and all, unlike yourself who seems to perform great leaps of conclusion jumping with absolutely no evidence or grounds whatsoever. Still waiting for that apology by the way.

My recommendations to Bryan re: Lucky Ace would have been submitted already but he's away this week so they wait.

Re: JetSet's thoughts on LuckyAce's performance, I completely agree that the FU clause should be no dodge from the consequences of using it. LA has behaved abominably and should be flagged accordingly.

However, in terms of a player's PAB the FU clause + deposit returned is basically the end of the road. Why? Ask yourself the purpose of the PAB. It is a complaint from a player to us in the understanding that we'll bring it up with the casino. If the casino has acted according to the letter of their T&Cs then there's no issue, especially if the deposit was returned. Do I respect them for doing this? Not a chance, but I can't argue with them about it either because they've acted as per their agreement with the player. So in terms of the PAB it's a dead issue.

What we choose to do about a casino that is FU'ing great numbers of players though is a different issue. That's up to us, not them and their T&Cs, and so we can obviously move forward there where the PABs may be dead in the water. As I've said, we'll do so when B. returns.