KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Slotster!]

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

...or in other words "be a professional bonus hunter" and (in my case) take half the fun out of it all...

[Macgyver]

...or in other words "be a professional bonus hunter" and (in my case) take half the fun out of it all...

I'd quote that as "be an informed and intelligent player if you choose to accept bonuses" ... I bet piecar will never make the same mistake again.

As I've said before, caveat aleator ...

[Casinomeister]

...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.

It's after midnight, and I just re-read the entire thread to find where I ragged on you for posting this instead of PABing. I don't think I did, because I know the PAB site was off-line (that was my doing). Sorry to come across that way.

I was just ragging on you (a little) for seemingly trying to use the forum to get the casino to cave.

Actually, I'm a pretty nice guy. Spear will attest to that.

[spearmaster]

Actually, I'm a pretty nice guy. Spear will attest to that.

Only when he's buying

[vinylweatherman]

I wonder why the casino is considered right to stick to terms. The terms only say the casino "reserves the right" to void winnings - nothing about this being absolute for ANY player who plays an excluded game. I see these "reserve the right" terms, and they are clearly to be used in an EXCEPTIONAL situation, not in the normal course of events.
The casino have clearly concluded this player was an exceptional case, i.e, interested in the bonus rather than playing long term. I wonder if the decision to play in GBP while residing in the USA was sufficient to come to the conclusion that this £8000 would never be offered back in fair play to the casino long term. The play on an assortment of games alone is what would be expected of a recreational player. If Piecar was after the bonus, she is clearly a newbie to the game for choosing to play DW VP rather than slip in a big bet on one of the other games hoping to not get noticed.
Trident Lounge should look at the really poor deal offered to loyal players against the attractive sign up bonuses. It is hardly surprising they attract the whores but fewer long term players. Most other MG casinos offer a much better deal to long term players, and some of these have a pretty poor sign-up bonus, as well as not being too direct at detailing all that is on offer for the long term. The poor long term deal was the main reason I didn't bother with Trident Lounge, despite them having scoreboard tournaments which would have probably made me join up if the long term deal was better.

The argument for taking bonuses, when on offer, is the fact that players who don't are subsidising players who do through the house edge of the games they play. If bonuses were smaller (or gone), and house edge decreased and loyalty point cashbacks increased there would be more value without bonuses, and online casinos don't have lavish premises to pay out on, and often seem to have "shoestring" support which doesn't cost too much.
One only has to see the large profits of the few listed online gambling outfits to see that they are not exactly suffering a hardship with the current bonusing policy. Affiliates still are offered some 20% to 30% of the net win from referred players, perhaps some of this could go back to the players in bonuses and cashbacks and less to affiliates; after all, affiliates are not selling breakdown insurance for some high street electrical chain, or loans for a bank, so why these high commission payments
They even offer biggish bonuses on POKER!!! and bad play does not reward the casino, they only get a rake, from which they must pay for everything other than the buy in prize tournaments.

[spearmaster]

I wonder why the casino is considered right to stick to terms. The terms only say the casino "reserves the right" to void winnings - nothing about this being absolute for ANY player who plays an excluded game. I see these "reserve the right" terms, and they are clearly to be used in an EXCEPTIONAL situation, not in the normal course of events.

Absolute or not, the casino has a clear right to invoke that clause at its own discretion - and one can NOT say that the term is unfair.

The casino have clearly concluded this player was an exceptional case, i.e, interested in the bonus rather than playing long term. I wonder if the decision to play in GBP while residing in the USA was sufficient to come to the conclusion that this £8000 would never be offered back in fair play to the casino long term.

It wasn't, but you'll have to take my word on that as the conversation was private.

The play on an assortment of games alone is what would be expected of a recreational player. If Piecar was after the bonus, she is clearly a newbie to the game for choosing to play DW VP rather than slip in a big bet on one of the other games hoping to not get noticed.

Still irrelevant.

Trident Lounge should look at the really poor deal offered to loyal players against the attractive sign up bonuses. It is hardly surprising they attract the whores but fewer long term players. Most other MG casinos offer a much better deal to long term players, and some of these have a pretty poor sign-up bonus, as well as not being too direct at detailing all that is on offer for the long term. The poor long term deal was the main reason I didn't bother with Trident Lounge, despite them having scoreboard tournaments which would have probably made me join up if the long term deal was better.

I don't know what you get as part of a long-term deal - I know that I have been treated very well, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I know them, I get only what I expect everyone else is getting.

I'm sure that they will look at their deal again, though.

The argument for taking bonuses, when on offer, is the fact that players who don't are subsidising players who do through the house edge of the games they play. If bonuses were smaller (or gone), and house edge decreased and loyalty point cashbacks increased there would be more value without bonuses, and online casinos don't have lavish premises to pay out on, and often seem to have "shoestring" support which doesn't cost too much.

Won't argue this point - but I don't think "shoestring" support has anything to do with this argument - if anything, I would argue that a casino taking this line of thinking would need to spend MORE on support in order to provide additional incentive to play at their casino.

One only has to see the large profits of the few listed online gambling outfits to see that they are not exactly suffering a hardship with the current bonusing policy. Affiliates still are offered some 20% to 30% of the net win from referred players, perhaps some of this could go back to the players in bonuses and cashbacks and less to affiliates; after all, affiliates are not selling breakdown insurance for some high street electrical chain, or loans for a bank, so why these high commission payments
They even offer biggish bonuses on POKER!!! and bad play does not reward the casino, they only get a rake, from which they must pay for everything other than the buy in prize tournaments.

All of this is really not relevant. They cannot go back on their deals with affiliates in any case.

[soflat]

I agree that their loyalty scheme is lacking. I haven't played there since clearing the initial bonus, wheras I have played repeatedly at quite a few MG casinos with and without bonuses.

As for the affiliate commission rates, that is driven by market forces.

[chuchu59]

Just about everyone has disallowed games. How was this rule used in a crappy way? She still has her bonus money and deposit sitting there. WTF?


This also shows me how closely you're reading this thread. The player is a SHE, and this was indicated early on. But besides that, I guess the British Pound is widely used in the states, because that's what she deposited.


It's already been said that if this would have happened within a few hours of the T&C change, then no problem, her winnings would have been honored. But she signed up nearly 24 hours after the change. It wasn't a short time frame, it was a day.

So these reasons to let her slide score high on the suck-o-meter. Next!

I dont get it. Why should a few hours not have made a difference whereas 24 hours would. Are we talking about 2 hours, 3 or even 4? If a player had read the terms before he/she went to bed intending to play the next day after work it would probably be about 20 hours before actually depositing and claiming a bonus. Either the casino sticks to the cut-off time or it doesnt. A few hours seems too arbitrary. What KN should do, with hindsight, is to ensure that all promotions like the present one, should have a validity period plus a link that is displayed prominently and that will appear at least 3 days before the expiry of the current promo, outlining the terms and conditions of the next promo since they should by that time have worked it out. If this can be done, I will have no qualms on KN or any casino for that matter, sticking rigidly to the terms and no allowances to be made for the players even if they were one second offside.

I also notice that it is stated in the Ts and Cs that any winnings from derived from restricted games may be deemed null and void and thus confiscated. This is wrong. Since these are restricted games, all play on these before wagering requirements are met are deemed null and void and any losses/winnings should also be nullified. Since winnings can be confiscated shouldnt losses also be reinstated unless this is a trap for unwary players which I believe KN does not intend to set.

This thread has drawn too much antagonism. Healthy debating but ....
While I cannot really fault KN's decision as they stuck to their terms, couldnt it provide a sweetener to the player whom I feel is not in any way a bonus abuser nor a fraudster. Leaving the deposit and bonus in the account for her use is nice but when you think about it, hey I was supposed to have won close to 8000 pounds, now I have to risk 200 and could incur a loss after all WRs have been met. It really sucks! Maybe you could return the deposit to the player and leave the bonus in the account for her to play risk-free(subject to WRs of course) as a goodwill gesture. Just my 2 cents to take the heat off this thread.

[spearmaster]

Maybe you could return the deposit to the player and leave the bonus in the account for her to play risk-free(subject to WRs of course) as a goodwill gesture. Just my 2 cents to take the heat off this thread.

Both deposit and bonus were restored to the player. It is not fair on the casino to offer the bonus without risking the deposit when it was entirely right and abided by its own terms and conditions.

Furthermore, the player has stated that she accepts responsibility for the mistake.

Other than that, there really is nothing to discuss. Bonus hunters play to the exact playthrough stated in the T&C - and the casino is forced to pay out. Why should it not be the same the other way around?

We cannot allow a situation to occur where it is unfair to either side. Some of you aren't going to like that - but you simply can't have your cake and eat it too.

[elscrabinda]

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

In this thread:



In the other thread, I said "people make mistakes".

Here we have players asking casinos to forgive mistakes. In the other thread we have players saying that mistakes are unforgivable.

I was complaining to some of the other mods that it must've been a full moon a couple of weeks ago... there was so much heat on this board I could have fried an egg.

Maybe it's a full moon now - there's just as much heat - for the exact OPPOSITE reason.

WTF?

On this basis you are being just as inconsistent in asking people to forgive English Harbour for their misdemeanor but arguing that this player should be hung out to dry for an arguably far far smaller 'offence'