KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

**Casinomeister** · 23rd May 2006, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by spearmaster

I wouldn't call it extortion. Definitely a whine, and definitely I understand where the player is coming from - but rules are rules.

Okay, extortion is a little strong. How about finagle?

**soflat** · 23rd May 2006, 06:50 PM

I think King Neptunes was in the right.

But the player deserves credit for trying to make the most of the initial bonus, which is good because their reload offers are super weak (scratchcards? yuck!)

**Slotster!** · 23rd May 2006, 06:54 PM

I think that's dead mean...

You wander into a casino, mess about on a few games, hit lucky and then DOH!

Like I say, yeah she shoulda read the LATEST T&C's... but she didn't, and is paying the price.

When viewed from a non-experienced perspective - It's scenarios like this that add to the whole online casino's are bad argument; and why they're still a million miles away from land based in terms of customer management.

Totally agreed on the signup bonus thing - shouldn't be allowed. Mind you, whilst casino's include such seemingly non-sensical and never ending T&C's, it'll only be the dedicated that stay interested - and the casual lot that lose out.

**bpb** · 23rd May 2006, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

As for criticisms on the game choice, I think the operators know which games are being hammered and which aren't. These people (like Micki) have been successfully operating casinos for years, and they know the patterns of bonus play better than any sharp player.

No, they really don't. They take reactive, instead of proactive steps to prevent advantage play. They restrict the last game hit by advantage players, and don't put any thought into protecting themselves against future advantage play. All it really takes is a bit of 6th grade level math to construct bonus terms that are fair and attractive to recreational players, yet unprofitable for bonus whores.

This is why advantage play has been and will continue to be obscenely profitable, while casinos will alienate their potentially most profitable customers in trying to deter their most unprofitable ones.

And a comment for Spearmaster

My comments are based on arguments founded in logic and reason, as are the comments made by many posters in this thread. Feel free to disagree, as God knows we may all be totally wrong, but please don't insult us by suggesting that we're saying these things just because we feel that "The player is always right ... the casino is always wrong"

**soflat** · 23rd May 2006, 07:07 PM

I don't understand why you guys are criticising the casino for not cracking down on advantage players. Why's it so important to you?

**spearmaster** · 23rd May 2006, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by bpb

My comments are based on arguments founded in logic and reason, as are the comments made by many posters in this thread. Feel free to disagree, as God knows we may all be totally wrong, but please don't insult us by suggesting that we're saying these things just because we feel that "The player is always right ... the casino is always wrong"

No one disagreed with your logic nor insulted you.

However - this is the logic I apply and it OUGHT to be common sense.

The casino has the right to offer - or exclude - ANY game it chooses to for ANY reason. It also has the right to bar the player from playing.

However, they may not do so "at their discretion" - if they make an offer to the player, it MUST be honored as long as the player has met the terms and conditions.

If the player has NOT met the terms and conditions, the casino has every right to void all play and return the deposit.

In most offers I read, online, offline, whatever, there is always a clause which states "We reserve the right to modify the terms of this offer at any time without prior notice".

This is what we call "buyer beware" - always, ALWAYS - get a copy of the contract before you buy, and make sure it is dated - if you are not sure, check with the cashier or the manager FIRST.

This has nothing to do with advantage play. It is the casino's right to exercise the terms and conditions it laid out before the player entered into the contract.

If the term or condition is unfair, of course, they may challenge it before the fact - but not afterwards.

**sirius** · 23rd May 2006, 07:50 PM

King Neptune maybe should employ someone who knows what they are doing regarding their promotions. There are other games they should be excluding and certainly there is no reason to void winnings for playing the games excluded from the wagering requirements. Instead they react monthly to play that happened in previous months. What sort of way to run a casino is that? As others have mentioned, there are other games that should be excluded from the start.

It makes the casino look a bit stupid to exclude one game but miss others that are more obvious. The casino should also remove the term that allows them to void winnings as it serves no legitimate purpose and alienates new players. The player can as easily build a large bankroll in allowed high house edge games such as slots. By allowing themselves to void the winnings they may be saving themselves a small amount of EV but that is if they actually exclude all the games they should which they haven't.

The EV difference is so small that it is not worth alienating new players by banning the games completely. Slots at Microgaming return around 96% and obviously have a high variance so I'm not sure why they think players can't win big on these games with almost as high EV as playing the others they are completely banning. They should just be excluded from counting towards the wagering requirements.

**spearmaster** · 23rd May 2006, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by sirius

King Neptune maybe should employ someone who knows what they are doing regarding their promotions. There are other games they should be excluding and certainly there is no reason to void winnings for playing the games excluded from the wagering requirements. Instead they react monthly to play that happened in previous months. What sort of way to run a casino is that? As others have mentioned, there are other games that should be excluded from the start.

It makes the casino look a bit stupid to exclude one game but miss others that are more obvious. The casino should also remove the term that allows them to void winnings as it serves no legitimate purpose and alienates new players. The player can as easily build a large bankroll in allowed high house edge games such as slots. By allowing themselves to void the winnings they may be saving themselves a small amount of EV but that is if they actually exclude all the games they should which they haven't.

The EV difference is so small that it is not worth alienating new players by banning the games completely. Slots at Microgaming return around 96% and obviously have a high variance so I'm not sure why they think players can't win big on these games with almost as high EV as playing the others they are completely banning. They should just be excluded from counting towards the wagering requirements.

You are missing the point. The casino may exclude ANY game it likes at its discretion. Whatever logic they apply is up to them.

Do I think VP should be excluded? Of course not. Frankly I'd prefer that no game be excluded - but I can't always have things my way, and it's their business so they can run it how they like as long as they don't screw the player after the fact - and in this case it is very clear that they were well within their rights.