View Single Post
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 12th May 2008, 06:53 AM
bb28's Avatar
bb28 bb28 is offline
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: US
Posts: 661
WTGs: 132
WTGd at 77 Times in 13 Posts
Thanks: 1,069
Thanked 811 Times in 385 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 4063
Rep Power: 32
bb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond reputebb28 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to bb28
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuchu59 View Post
I agree that it would not be cost effective to request notarized docs from each and every player. However, while TIV and some others may have genuine concerns on whether some players are fraud there may be some rogues using this as a ploy to delay cashouts or not to pay at all. We should not trust the casino in this regard as we dont know whether they are the former or latter. If there was a system which requires for such documentation when we register/deposit we should have much less to worry about.

Maybe the casino could seek to reimburse the notarization fees or rather the portion of fees that exceed $5/10. Or they could give a match bonus for these fees with a 3x playthrough.. IMO the casinos may really require these docs for security purposes but havent given much thought to this issue to make it more palatable to the players. Simply stating that this occurs infrequently is not enough because of the fundamental question: Who knows?
That is a good point chuchu59, if the player does have to go to the expense and the trouble of getting documents notarized and the player is found to be in good standing then they should reimburse the player or maybe add a no deposit bonus.
As for the it occurring infrequently, this is the 1st time I've seen it come up in the forums and it's just a 2 times thing in the last week or so, so it doesn't seem to be a frequent occurrence judging by that.
As I said in another post....if it's used as a delaying payment tactic for no good reason then that is just wrong, but we have absolutely no proof of that in these two cases.

Last edited by bb28; 12th May 2008 at 06:56 AM. Reason: added something
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bb28 For This Useful Post:
anniemac (12th May 2008), maxd (12th May 2008)