KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Freudian]

Dodgy practice by King Neptunes. The casino were the ones that had the advantage of the non-bonusclearing game and yet they have the nerve to confiscate (in my book steal) this players money.

And Casinomeister, you can forget about the casinos coding in a solution so you are unable to play excluded games. This for the simple reason that casinos want people to screw up so they can slam down the hammer on them. Hell, they won't even program a system that will let you (in any practical manner) monitor how much more you have to play to clear a bonus. It is not that such programming is a behemoth of a project beyond the abilities of feeble programmers. It is a business strategy. With less room for the player to screw up there is less room to steal peoples money.

And people wonder why american politicians want to protect their voters from this business?

It is with sadness I have watched the increasing entrenchment of the very people that have a possibility to drive real positive change. You know who you are. This case and the English Harbour one clearly shows it.

[soflat]

Dodgy practice by King Neptunes. The casino were the ones that had the advantage of the non-bonusclearing game and yet they have the nerve to confiscate (in my book steal) this players money.

The player had the advantage of the bonus and access to read the bonus rules. It is a generous offer by the casino, if you only follow the rules.

[spearmaster]

And Casinomeister, you can forget about the casinos coding in a solution so you are unable to play excluded games. This for the simple reason that casinos want people to screw up so they can slam down the hammer on them. Hell, they won't even program a system that will let you (in any practical manner) monitor how much more you have to play to clear a bonus. It is not that such programming is a behemoth of a project beyond the abilities of feeble programmers. It is a business strategy. With less room for the player to screw up there is less room to steal peoples money.

With some casinos this could be the case, no qeustion about it - but I think the majority of reputable businesses would either agree with such a proposal, or else stop offering bonuses.

It is with sadness I have watched the increasing entrenchment of the very people that have a possibility to drive real positive change. You know who you are. This case and the English Harbour one clearly shows it.

It is with great sadness that I watch many of you viewing the online casino industry through rose-colored glasses. Everything that a casino does wrong, you slam. Every time a player does wrong, you slam the casino. You know who you are - it's sad that this unrealistic, one-sided view that you have of the industry is ultimately what makes everyone on both sides look bad.

If you view what we feel is the fair point of view as unfair, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. I'm sure many of you will just simply abuse the benefits and privileges of the online casino industry until it is no longer viable - then either the casinos will disappear under rocks, or the players will.

I know which possibility is more likely. Do you?

[Freudian]

The player had the advantage of the bonus and access to read the bonus rules. It is a generous offer by the casino, if you only follow the rules.

As is every single bonus on the web. It is the rules and their application that as always is the problem. Every dodgy casino around has a rule that lets then void any play for any reason. Are you suggesting that they are kosher simply because the rules allow then to take money if they wish to? King Neptunes behaviour in this case is very close that of industry slime giants. And we all know the reason (although some for political or whatever reason won't admit it). This player was lucky enough to win quite a bit of money.

Strange rules, the constant changing of the rules and an extremely cynical application of the rules is what we have here. And with the almost gleeful support of high ranking members of this site, why shouldn't casinos add more and more absurd rules in their T&C? It is clear that they run no risk of losing the endorsements for doing so.

T&Cs already are designed to trap players, with the terms being displayed on many different pages on the site, constant changing of the rules and different conditions for different promotions. If the industry wanted to they could make things much clearer. But then they would lose the fine print blunt object they currently have to bash their customers in the head with.

[Freudian]

It is with great sadness that I watch many of you viewing the online casino industry through rose-colored glasses. Everything that a casino does wrong, you slam. Every time a player does wrong, you slam the casino. You know who you are - it's sad that this unrealistic, one-sided view that you have of the industry is ultimately what makes everyone on both sides look bad.

Do you seriously think that the "wrong" the player made here is serious enough to cost £8000? Do you really think she deserves to have her winnings confiscated?

[spearmaster]

Do you seriously think that the "wrong" the player made here is serious enough to cost £8000? Do you really think she deserves to have her winnings confiscated?

The amount of money is entirely irrelevant. Like everyone else, I feel sorry for her because it WAS a large amount - but for $10 or $10,000, rules are STILL rules.

Does that suck? Yes, big time. Is she entitled to her winnings? No.

[Freudian]

The amount of money is entirely irrelevant. Like everyone else, I feel sorry for her because it WAS a large amount - but for $10 or $10,000, rules are STILL rules.

Does that suck? Yes, big time. Is she entitled to her winnings? No.

The amount of money is highly relevant, since casinos use the rules much more often when someone wins big. To pretend that there isn't financial motives behind King Neptunes actions here is naive.

You failed to answer the question.

Do you think she deserves to lose her winnings?

[spearmaster]

The amount of money is highly relevant, since casinos use the rules much more often when someone wins big. To pretend that there isn't financial motives behind King Neptunes actions here is naive.

Irrelevant. She broke the rules, plain and simple. She admitted as much.

Think about it - if the amount had been $10, would she - or you - be raising the same amount of fuss? I highly doubt it. Nevertheless, she still broke the rules. Questioning the casino's motive is absolutely ridiculous.

You failed to answer the question.

Do you think she deserves to lose her winnings?

I said she is not entitled to her winnings. If you want me to answer it another way, she does deserve to lose her winnings no matter how much it sucks.

[dominique]

Unfortunately rules are rules, regardless of who breaks them and what the consequences.

In my book Neptune has been an impeccable casino with the highest ethics for years, and they still are.

Would I be miffed if I wasn't paid that money? Of course! What a let down!

But we can't expect casinos to stick to the rules when it is in our favor and to ignore them when it's not.

If it's a clean industry we want (and that is exactly what I always want to shoot for) we do have to support the rules.

[Freudian]

Irrelevant. She broke the rules, plain and simple. She admitted as much.

Think about it - if the amount had been $10, would she - or you - be raising the same amount of fuss? I highly doubt it. Nevertheless, she still broke the rules. Questioning the casino's motive is absolutely ridiculous.

I said she is not entitled to her winnings. If you want me to answer it another way, she does deserve to lose her winnings no matter how much it sucks.

Why is is ridiculous to question the casino's motives? Because the obvious conclusion is one you don't like?

And I may remind you that the rules does not state that the casino will confiscate the winnings. It states that the casino may deem them null and void. Most casinos have a clause that claim they may confiscate money for whatever reason they want. Most wisely never use that clause. Would use of that "catch all" rule also be supported by you? If not, why? It is in the rules.

You and I both know this player isn't a scammer. The casino knows it. They wouldn't use this rule to nail the player if the amount was small. Why piss off a potential customer over a small amount. £8k on the other hand...

There are a few casinos (32red for example) that wouldn't dream of invoking this rule for this player in this situation. Common sense says the player collective are better served by directing their play to those places and avoiding King Neptunes. No matter how friendly the owner is.