KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Macgyver]

I read the Terms & Conditions at King Neptunes website and the only video pokers on the list of excluded games were Aces video poker and jacks or better video poker. Deuces Wild was NOT on the list of excluded games in regards to the bonus money.

When did the OP read these T&C? Some people are assuming it was the night before the deposit was made.

I deposited and played on April 1st in the evening.

I played slots, cyber stud poker, tri card poker, and deuces wild video poker.

They sent me an email that they changed their terms at midnight on March 31st.

I told them, "Look, I saw different terms and I played by the rules so why are you doing this to me?!?"

I had more than 8000 GBP in my account and they reduced my balance to ZERO. I don't know if what they are saying about the Deuces Wild is true or not; all I remember is that I before I played only Aces and Jacks or Better video pokers were excluded, but deuces wild was okay.

The only thing I am guilty of is an honest mistake.

Even if they are right and they changed terms hours before I deposited and played, is it right to just void my winnings? Where is the goodwill? Someone wins big at your casino and you just decide just not to pay them?

King Neptunes told me that they informed eCogra of the situation. I haven't heard anything from eCogra so I assume that they are siding with King Neptunes. But I think eCogra is a sham anyway, especially after reading all of the complaints against them in the online forums...

If anyone can help me with this, I could sure use the help.

What isn't said here is if King Neptune's refunded the player their original deposit or left it in the account for them to play accepted games. If the deposit is left in the account, or even refunded for that matter, what's wrong with that?

Everyone jumps on a casino to follow their T&C, but when a player doesn't follow it, you want the casino to demonstrate "goodwill" and let the player keep winnings?

It's a two-way street here, people, where both parties have to follow the T&C at the time money is deposited and a bonus is given. If the player doesn't have hard proof (a screenshot) of the T&C at the time they deposited, then this should be chalked up as a lesson learned.

Yes it costs money for the casino not to enforce every clause and subclause to their letter, but through such decisions reputations are built.

And if the casino doesn't enforce their T&C, then they're hit with abusers and scammers who know they can take advantage of the casino. I don't think any casino wants that type of "reputation."

[kenneth2816]

I have lost over a 1/2 million over the Internet and have a lot of experience.

Forgive me, but I don't see that this actually qualifies you for much except as an example of someone who should NOT gamble.

[Slotster!]

Yes it costs money for the casino not to enforce every clause and subclause to their letter, but through such decisions reputations are built.

I agree... Yes, it seems the player didn't adhere to the T&C's exactly, but it's exactly as has been mentioned before. Any casino that includes these clauses would be on my steer clear list. By all means ensure additional wagering requirements or whatever, but to confiscate all winnings is just - well - a bit rubbish and not what I'd want from a casino.

I never read T&C's nearly as thoroughly as I should, but then again I only play at outfits I know won't try and trip me up the minute I click on a game that, in their opinion, I shouldn't.

Just another example of why bonuses should be awarded to loyal, proven players - with no strings... This stupid scenario we have online is absurd, and serious ammunition for the H.R 4777 supporters. Let's face it, without the knowledge a lot of us have of this online business, on the surface this looks like yet another example of why it's all bad...

32RED plopped a bonus in my account recently to say 'congratulations' for something that happened in my life a few weeks ago. It said on the message, and I quote, "It's yours to cash out and buy something for the family, or spin and win - it's up to you!"... and people wonder why for a lot of online players - they're becoming almost exclusive.

In summary - the guy didn't follow the T&C's, and hence probably deserves what's happened. In reality, and looking at the bigger picture, this makes the casino look bad. End of story...

Be interested to see the casino's response/opinion on this one!

[kreome]

Maxlevine, you can't pitch a bitch right now and it is like that for I think couple of weeks because the Meister is on the road and it says that you may use the board for complaints so I guess that what Picar did.

Also the player did not say they changed the terms on the 31 midnight he said that the casino told him that the terms were changed on the 31 of april.

The question is what do they call 31 midnight is it at midnight of 31 which means the first day of april actually and then the player had less than 24 hrs to see the new terms or maybe the night of the 30th


The casino says "we reserve the right..." why do they use the reserve the right on a player that play deuces wild, slots and other games with a substantial house edge and indicate excatly what were the terms before with details, while the player also declare "I saw the old terms which were hours before"

The question is not if they can not pay, of course they can because this Picar did not fulfilled the terms or atleast the new terms, the question is why to reserve the right with him ?????

I think I know why , why ? because 8000 GBP is a lot of money for everyone, and why to pay if you can just not pay leaving the player with nothing. Did this player do something so bad playing Deuces wild ? Hell no!!! but these were the terms at that time.

I think Bryan can help because they are reputable microgaming group of casinos.

[paul02085]

nowinsituation said,
"You are asking for help at the wrong place if your asking the guy that runs this place because he has casinos out there that are screwing people as well. He may say and make it look like he is trying to help but trust me he is not on any of us players side he is one of them in Descries."

I am assuming this is directed at Casinomeister. If so, you sir are a jackass who hasnt got a clue. Who the hell are you to come on here spouting bs like that?

I am sorry but reading crap like this chaps my ass after all of the things the meister has done to help people work things out with the casinos not to mention the charitable acts like spearheading (along with spearmaster) the effort that led to a $111k donation for victims of the tsunami.

Dont come here trying to say meister is a phony, it wont wash.

[Casinomeister]

King Neptunes is not paying me almost 8,000 GBP...

Sorry to hear of this, but it's clear that you didn't follow the terms and conditions: The new Terms & Conditions took effect on March 31 at midnight; you registered, made your first deposit and claimed your bonus in the evening of April 1. It was your responsibility to read the Terms & Conditions that govern the £200 bonus when you claimed the bonus.

You wagered and won on games that were not to be played with the bonus. It may seem harsh, but that's the way it goes when you play bonus funds on non-playable games. There is no way in hell anyone should be dissing this casino just because they stick by the rules. If they were to say, "okay go ahead - we'll make an exception for you," then everyone and their brother would chime in and say "what about me? I played on the disallowed games as well!" Run a business like that, and you'll be run into the ground.

These guys must really take care of the affiliates given the amount of praise they receive here.

I think you are way off base on that comment. The Trident Lounge Group is an outstanding example of how casinos ought to be run. They are right up there with 32Red. You should be thankful that you have operators like Micki in this business. To insulate that they only get praised by affiliates who get paid well -- well you just lost points in my book. Besides, most affiliates are players as well. That's something to consider.

I know where you are coming from. You should get paid! The only reason they put terms in there is so they don’t have to pay you. You are asking for help at the wrong place if your asking the guy that runs this place because he has casinos out there that are screwing people as well. He may say and make it look like he is trying to help but trust me he is not on any of us players side he is one of them in Descries. I have casinos over the Internet that owe me over $200,000.00. The best Casinos to play at are the ones that say they will pay the same day. Spanish Luck Casino pays just go talk to Tex and tell him COS**** sent you he will take good care of you. Black Dog Casino is another that will pay you the same day. The Casinos that have to hold your withdraws for days, do not trust them. I am thinking about opening up a web site to help people and advise them of what to look for. I have lost over a 1/2 million over the Internet and have a lot of experience. I don’t plan on owning any of them and you dam sure cant trust someone that is playing both sides. I mean look at the picture of the meister, that tells everything.

How much glue did you sniff before making that post? Is COS**** your affiliate code? What a dweeb!

[Slotster!]

CM - What's your opinion on this clause in general for excluded games, and the resulting removal of ALL winnings?

As I've said a couple of times, I totally understand the casino are within their rights to do this - but what's your opinion on this sort of practice generally?

You mention they're right up there with 32RED... Can you ever imagine Ed and Pat and co pulling this sort of hard line with a player, for playing a version of video poker that they shouldn't.

I understand it's a mute point - but I'd be interested to see exactly HOW much was played at the excluded game.

[thelawnet]

Sorry to hear of this, but it's clear that you didn't follow the terms and conditions: The new Terms & Conditions took effect on March 31 at midnight; you registered, made your first deposit and claimed your bonus in the evening of April 1. It was your responsibility to read the Terms & Conditions that govern the £200 bonus when you claimed the bonus.

You wagered and won on games that were not to be played with the bonus. It may seem harsh, but that's the way it goes when you play bonus funds on non-playable games. There is no way in hell anyone should be dissing this casino just because they stick by the rules. If they were to say, "okay go ahead - we'll make an exception for you," then everyone and their brother would chime in and say "what about me? I played on the disallowed games as well!" Run a business like that, and you'll be run into the ground.

Well that's not really true.

They say " These winnings may be deemed null & void and will be removed/confiscated from your account balance or withdrawals at the sole discretion of Trident Entertainment Group. ". [ if you play the excluded games]

They basically say they can determine whether they will void your winnings *at their discretion*. In this case it seems that the player signed u a few hours after they had changed their terms and conditions, and he was not aware that the site had changed since he read the site. This would seem to me like a good case to use 'discretion', as there are extenuating circumstances. The player behaved honestly, he just erred in not checking the terms again at the time he made the deposit.

This is hardly setting a precedent: the terms had only just been changed, the terms already say the casino will 'use its discretion'.

And to suggest that you will be run into the ground if you don't confiscate people's winnings for playing certain games is absurd: pretty much every other online casino manages without such a term.

To say "There is no way in hell anyone should be dissing this casino just because they stick by the rules." is just wrong. People are entitled to diss the casino for taking the harsh line rather than using 'discretion'. Just the same as people criticise certain banks (e.g., Capital One, MBNA) for being strict with their rules when there are extenuating circumstances, I don't think it's unreasonable to criticise a casino for doing something similar. There are plenty of cases where the business might be in the right, but it makes the decision to go with the customer, and quite rightly those businesses are popular with the public.

[Vesuvio]

You wagered and won on games that were not to be played with the bonus. It may seem harsh, but that's the way it goes when you play bonus funds on non-playable games. There is no way in hell anyone should be dissing this casino just because they stick by the rules. If they were to say, "okay go ahead - we'll make an exception for you," then everyone and their brother would chime in and say "what about me? I played on the disallowed games as well!" Run a business like that, and you'll be run into the ground.

I think that's a bit of an overstatement. People are only suggesting good will could be shown here because the player's obviously going by the terms and conditions that were there a few hours before he started playing. He clearly had no intention of playing disallowed games but got caught out. £8000's a lot to pay for an honest mistake.

A second issue is whether it's reasonable to have an "any play whatsoever on disallowed games voids the bonus" clause. It's debatable, but until recently it's only been rogue or borderline casinos that have had such a term. Any clause that makes it possible to forfeit winnings for a mistake in meeting often complex wagering conditions is a bad thing (especially around the dates casinos change terms). It's sad for the industry to see otherwise reputable casino groups adopting such terms.

Mathematically it's not really justified, either. Any play on disallowed games will cost the player money while not helping to meet the wr. The argument that you can use the funds to aggressively build up a big balance is negated by the fact you can do that pretty much as well by playing aggressively with the allowed games.

p.s. excuse the repetition as I wrote this before seeing thelawnet's post

[nafanny29]

Strictly according to the T&Cs on 1st April the player gets 0.00. But its uncanny that a player deposits and plays a game that was ok the day before and wins quite a substantial sum.

coincidence... maybe but I smell a rat here!!