KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[soflat]

Originally Posted by Slotster!

Hmm... Yeah, I guess so. That didn't hit home to me, as I play in GBP anyway. So is that the preferred currency of the bonus hunter due to the value? Well I never. I'm going to be banned from everywhere BANNED!! BANNED I TELL YOU!!! Hold on, I do live here - so that's ok I guess.

No you won't get banned as long as you don' try to do an 8000 GBP hit-and-run.

[Slotster!]

Comments taken on board about the operator Spearmaster! - Giving the deposit AND bonus back is half reasonable under the circumstances I guess..

Originally Posted by soflat

No you won't get banned as long as you don' try to do an 8000 GBP hit-and-run.

Hold on though - you can't guarantee a 'hit and run' at a casino... Certainly not to that extent, what with the house edge... I'd be less inclined to believe this poster if they were trying to claim a grinded out £405, or something close to the deposit/bonus.

More to the point - I stand by the stupidity of the rule, the changed T&C's and the excluded game, regardless to some extent of the poster we all started talking about

[elscrabinda]

CM, if you consider the rule and the way it was applied to be so eminently sensible please explain how a player benefits from playing a house edge game when it doesn't count towards playthrough. Dissallow games from WR but do not disallow them completely from being played. IT MAKES NO SENSE and results in highly unfortunate threads like this.

[bpb]

Originally Posted by elscrabinda

CM, if you consider the rule and the way it was applied to be so eminently sensible please explain how a player benefits from playing a house edge game when it doesn't count towards playthrough. Dissallow games from WR but do not disallow them completely from being played. IT MAKES NO SENSE and results in highly unfortunate threads like this.

There are situations where it is reasonable to seize winnings when restricted games are played. An advantage player can bet his entire balance on one hand of blackjack, or baccarat, or pai gow, then if he wins, grind out the remaining wagering requirement on a non-restricted game, and end up with a positive expectation.


What doesn't make sense is to restrict video poker, but have no restriction on pai gow, 3 card, etc. An advantage player would simply avoid the restricted game and utilize the non-restricted games. They are reacting to past patterns of advantage play, but in doing so, they aren't protecting themselves against future advantage play. But they have laid a nice trap for recreational players to fall into, and are generating a good deal of bad feelings.

[silcnlayc]

This thread is so, so weird... just like the other thread...

So true and amazing how the tide shifts with each encounter of wrongdoing or mistaken attempts at plays..never see the SAME answers to the SAME problems stated differently..it's like, let see, today I will stand behind "this" and not "that" but tomorrow I will stand behind "that" but not "this"... definitely wierd...

[GrandMaster]

Originally Posted by elscrabinda

CM, if you consider the rule and the way it was applied to be so eminently sensible please explain how a player benefits from playing a house edge game when it doesn't count towards playthrough. Dissallow games from WR but do not disallow them completely from being played. IT MAKES NO SENSE and results in highly unfortunate threads like this.

Let's say you deposit $100 and get 100% cashable match bonus with 10x(D+B)=$2000 wagering requirement on slots with 5% house edge. Your expected loss is $100, your expected profit is 0. (OK, not quite, the possibility of busting out works in your favour, once you bust out you stop losing money, so there would be a small expected profit.)

Instead, put everything on a single number on roulette. If you win, you have $7200, you play the required amount on slots, the expected value of your final bankroll is $7100. If you lose, you just walk away. Your expectation is $7100/37=$191.89. This strategy turned a bonus with minimal profit into one with more than $90 profit. If the wagering requirement were 20x(D+B) then I am pretty sure that playing on slots would have a negative expectation, whereas this strategy combining it with roulette would still show almost $90 expected profit.

This player does not appear to have used such a strategy, but playing in £££ when you are not from the UK is likely to set of a warning flag. (Was it Trident Lounge that invented the "International Foreign Exchange Laws"?)

[Macgyver]

Originally Posted by GrandMaster

Let's say you deposit $100 and get 100% cashable match bonus with 10x(D+B)=$2000 wagering requirement on slots with 5% house edge. Your expected loss is $100, your expected profit is 0. (OK, not quite, the possibility of busting out works in your favour, once you bust out you stop losing money, so there would be a small expected profit.)

Instead, put everything on a single number on roulette. If you win, you have $7200, you play the required amount on slots, the expected value of your final bankroll is $7100. If you lose, you just walk away. Your expectation is $7100/37=$191.89. This strategy turned a bonus with minimal profit into one with more than $90 profit. If the wagering requirement were 20x(D+B) then I am pretty sure that playing on slots would have a negative expectation, whereas this strategy combining it with roulette would still show almost $90 expected profit.

This player does not appear to have used such a strategy, but playing in £££ when you are not from the UK is likely to set of a warning flag. (Was it Trident Lounge that invented the "International Foreign Exchange Laws"?)

Almost exactly what I said earlier ... nice to see someone like Grandmaster using it, too.

[piecar]

Just a few things...

Again, as I have said before I read the Terms & Conditions on the evening of March 31st. I made my deposit and played at about 6 pm on April 1st. I would say the total elapsed time was about 20 hours between reading and playing. My bad. Again, I made an HONEST mistake and was hoping that this forum would help me to have King Neptunes relax their position on thier right to 'void and confiscate all winnings made on excluded games...'

BTW Casinomeister, you chastised me for posting this in the forum instead of dircetly "pitching a bitch." I went to pitch my bitch but there was a note on the webpage that said you were away and to just post in the forum. And that is what I did. I was following your instructions.

Anyway you should all know that played many games at King Neptunes. I played slots, cyber stud poker, roulette, craps, blackjack, tri card poker. I played A LOT there. I wagered A LOT. And I only cashed in a small portion of my nearly 8,000 pound balance--I cashed in for 1,000 pounds and fully intended to play with the rest at a later date.

I admit that it is my responsibility to read and understand the casino's Terms & Condtions. My only gripe is the extreme interpretation of their "right to void winnings" clause. This was an honest mistake!!

[soflat]

Yes it was definitely an honest mistake. I don't think anybody denies that. But it is still up to their discretion to pay or not, so I am not going to attack them over it.

If you played only allowed games, you probably wouldn't have hit 8000 GBP, so it didn't really cost you anything.

The lessons to be had are: hit those bonuses before they change, and copy the T&C page when you receive the bonus.

[Slotster!]

Originally Posted by piecar

And I only cashed in a small portion of my nearly 8,000 pound balance--I cashed in for 1,000 pounds and fully intended to play with the rest at a later date.

Interesting stuff.. Not a hit and run then! Even if it was intended to be a gradual hit and run of sorts, just exactly HOW is a legitimate player supposed to cash out!?!

Piecar - can you answer the question why you played in GBP?

Still think the casino messed up here, regardless of official stick to the rules blah blah blah...