|
If you follow a strategy card, your play would be "perfect", but this is NOT the same as using a bot.
I suspect they reopened the account because they realised they were up against a professional LAWYER, but still thought a bot had been used, hence they opted to reopen the account and "steal" the money.
They have simply dug themselves into an even deeper hole, since opening the account again shows they are happy for this player to continue, yet they have failed to account for the missing funds, which would be either a careless loss or even theft.
If they have indeed returned the deposit, then it should arrive in a timely manner, and this would also justify their request for ID.
If they had indeed decided initially that cheating had taken place, and ID would not influence the outcome, then they are indeed guilty of invasion of privacy through a deceptive and invalid request for ID. They most probably wanted the ID so that they could add this player's details to some "risk database", not so that they could verify the account and pay the winnings as they seemed keen to imply. Depending on the location of the casino (and player), this could have landed the casino in a lot of trouble, and is probably why they are now retreating from their earlier position.
It seems that being well versed in the law (or a good blagger) helps to make casinos reassess some of their no-appeal decisions made on "security grounds".
If this did go to a court, they would have to PROVE a bot was used, rather than a strategy card. In defence, the player could simply offer to repeat the "bot session" in front of the court, and show they could have made the play by using the strategy card. The judge may not fancy sitting for 3 hours to watch this, but might presume that 3 hours is not an unreasonable length of time in which to carry out a simple and repetitive task well, given that factory workers do this twice a day, 5 days a week, and for much of their working lives.
|