KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Linus]

Can't argue with that either - except this is all after the fact! The clause was there - and I'm going to dispute your use of "many" and replace it with "some" LOL...

Well, there's about twenty trillion casionos out there (slight exaggeration), and I'm way too lazy to try to do a survey... but can we agree that some of the most successful ones don't have confiscation clauses?

but in this case hindsight isn't even an issue!

I think we both agree that she isn't entitled to her winnings. King Neptune's T&Cs clearly allow them to do what they did.

I'm just arguing that many players - particularly those who who gamble mainly to relax or have fun, and aren't interested in scouring lengthy terms and conditions - would be better off avoiding casinos that have confiscation clauses.

Nothing is less fun than having a casino seize your winnings!

I know Intercasino is one. Perhaps when I have a little more time later, I'll put together a list of some others.

Well, yes. And no.

I think confiscation clauses are somewhat necessary to protect the casino from abuse. I don't, however, like confiscation clauses as a general rule.

I don't like them either. I've never been caught by one - but I put that down, at least partly, to luck.

I'm certainly capable of reading the T&Cs on one day, and depositing on the next.

Ultimately, if you are ready to play by the rules, you must accept them if you start playing. If you miss something it is your own fault. Emotion does not rule here - hard cold black & white contract does.

I agree with all that. But I also think it's in a casino's interests to try to attract players. And confiscating players' money is - or at least should be - the kind of thing many players find unattractive in a casino.

Some good suggestions have come up in this thread, and perhaps all operators can take these into account - but I think there's really no point in going on and on about how the casino should feel sorry for the player or vice versa.

[vedat]

its like this you examine the road you will takle from a day before but when you are on the way you saw a hole on the ways and its too late to stop i dont think this players intentions was bad i think casinos intestions is bad i think they are all sure that that player had read the terms before so she won big so why not use our terms to screw her they have done it good i am pretty sure that they will lose in the long run .

[spearmaster]

Well, there's about twenty trillion casionos out there (slight exaggeration), and I'm way too lazy to try to do a survey... but can we agree that some of the most successful ones don't have confiscation clauses?

I already agreed on "some" LOL - but I suspect you'll be surprised to find that many of the other successful ones also have confiscation clauses.

I'm just arguing that many players - particularly those who who gamble mainly to relax or have fun, and aren't interested in scouring lengthy terms and conditions - would be better off avoiding casinos that have confiscation clauses.

Unless things have changed over the past year, I think that would severely limit their choices.

Nothing is less fun than having a casino seize your winnings!

Having casino call security to throw you out the door as well?

I don't like them either. I've never been caught by one - but I put that down, at least partly, to luck.

In my case, it's not luck. Ultimately, I lose most of the time LOL. But when I do get ahead on an initial deposit, I always go back and recheck the terms. But generally, since I mostly play slots now, it makes no difference.

I'm certainly capable of reading the T&Cs on one day, and depositing on the next.

So is most anyone else - but that's still besides the point. Had she gone and looked before starting play, this discussion would have never occurred - and if she had read the night before, she would have known exactly where to go look just to make sure.

I agree with all that. But I also think it's in a casino's interests to try to attract players. And confiscating players' money is - or at least should be - the kind of thing many players find unattractive in a casino.

If KN, or any casino for that matter, knew of a solution which would not require such a thing, I am quite certain they would have implemented it long ago. The problem is, there are many people of many different types using many different methods to try to beat the casino out of their bonus - so you can hardly blame them for trying to protect themselves. I'm not saying that piecar tried to do this, but ultimately she still fell foul of the rules.

[Linus]

A partial list of casinos that don't have confiscation clauses:

32Red
Intercasino
William Hill
Cherry Casino
Coral
Littlewoods
Roxy Palace
Sands of the Caribbean
Lucky Nugget

[Linus]

If KN, or any casino for that matter, knew of a solution which would not require such a thing, I am quite certain they would have implemented it long ago. The problem is, there are many people of many different types using many different methods to try to beat the casino out of their bonus - so you can hardly blame them for trying to protect themselves. I'm not saying that piecar tried to do this, but ultimately she still fell foul of the rules.

Well, a couple of things.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a player trying to win money from a casino. After all, they're trying to win money from us! If casinos were actually able to prevent players who were trying to win from playing, I doubt they'd have any customers left.

Casinos do have the right to write whatever T&C's they want.

A casino could, for example, simply say paying winnings was discretionary, and then refuse to pay anyone who managed to win. I just wouldn't suggest anyone actually play there!

In piecar's case, if the clause was there to protect them from "abusers," there's nothing in this thread that suggests piecar was one of them.

Instead, the thread suggests she happened to get lucky at a house advantage game, and King Neptune decided to use their "sole discretion" and "promotion abuse" clauses against her - despite the fact there's nothing to suggest she was actually abusing their promotions.

[spearmaster]

Well, a couple of things.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a player trying to win money from a casino. After all, they're trying to win money from us! If casinos were actually able to prevent players who were trying to win from playing, I doubt they'd have any customers left.

Absolutely nothing wrong with players trying to win. To be honest, I hate this whole bonus thing altogether. And I expect that players will use every advantage they have to leaving the casino a winner.

My point is that those terms were in to protect against genuine abuse - and piecar was never said to be a bonus abuser though some other posters did draw some sort of a connection. It wasn't the casino that did so.

"Sole discretion" is kind of an unfortunate term which is still commonly found in contracts of all sorts. It should be clear that the organization issuing the contract has sole discretion in the first place.

A casino could, for example, simply say paying winnings was discretionary, and then refuse to pay anyone who managed to win. I just wouldn't suggest anyone actually play there!

Well, I think that would be a genuine reason for roguing a casino - you can hardly draw that comparison to "sole discretion" though. You can't say that the T&Cs were unfair, because they aren't - yet your example above clearly is unfair.

In piecar's case, if the clause was there to protect them from "abusers," there's nothing in this thread that suggests piecar was one of them.

Correct.

Instead, the thread suggests she happened to get lucky at a house advantage game, and King Neptune decided to use their "sole discretion" and "promotion abuse" clauses against her - despite the fact there's nothing to suggest she was actually abusing their promotions.

Not correct, at least in my opinion. I've already said what I believe "sole discretion" means - nothing sinister about that. And they did not say that she was an abuser nor did they say what she did was promotion abuse - all they said is that she played an excluded game - and then they went out of their way to review the play to see if she would have met the T&C even after the excluded game - and she did not by losing the entire amount on the very first play of a game which was eligible.

Other casinos don't even go that far - play an excluded game and your winnings are void. They certainly wouldn't lift a finger to check the situation - and they certainly wouldn't give them the bonus and deposit back, they would probably just refund the deposit and close the account.

I believe it is unfair to the casino to be hauled up for invoking a term which they had every right to invoke, and especially after bending about as far as they could to try and give the player a second chance, as well as checking into whether this was a case that they could make reasonable exception for.

[kingfile64]

What is disturbing about the defenders of KN and others with similar terms of excluded games is the player is ALLOWED to play an excluded game, but is then in a no win situation. If the player loses, the casino is silent. If the player wins the casino confiscates the winnings from the game and even other games. The bottem line is these T&C are ROUGE. Sad thing is many casinos have similar terms. Why ecogra allows these type of T&C is beyond belief.

[Linus]

Not correct, at least in my opinion. I've already said what I believe "sole discretion" means - nothing sinister about that. And they did not say that she was an abuser nor did they say what she did was promotion abuse - all they said is that she played an excluded game - and then they went out of their way to review the play to see if she would have met the T&C even after the excluded game - and she did not by losing the entire amount on the very first play of a game which was eligible.

There were three relevant paragraphs.

The first said excluded games don't count toward the WR.

Excluded Games: .... Wagers placed at these games will not be deemed as fulfilling the promotion's minimum wager requirement.

Please note that not fulfilling a WR is not the same as confiscating a player's funds... and had KN simply not counted her wagers toward the WR, I doubt we'd ever have heard a peep from her.



The second paragraph says that KN may confiscate winnings from excluded games.

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.

Please note that this term does not give KN the right to confiscate winnings from non-excluded games.



The only paragraph that applies to piecar's situation - that allows KN to confiscate all of a player's winnings - is the one under "Promotion Abuse."

Non-compliance with these terms and conditions shall be deemed to be 'Promotion Abuse' and as such shall give the King Neptune's Casino Management the right to at its sole discretion take the following actions against such abusers:

* All winnings on any account/s opened will be null and void and all withdrawals will be cancelled where play has been deemed abusive.

Since all of piecar's winnings were confiscated - from both excluded and non-excluded games - I have to assume King Neptune seized her funds under the "Promotion Abuse" rules.


I realize the rep from KN talked about confiscating her funds because of "winnings from winnings," but I have to assume she misspoke, because no where in King Neptune's terms and conditions is there any such rule.

Since assume King Neptune is following its own rules when they seize players' funds, they must have done it under the "Promotion Abuse" rule.

The other option is that they were not following their own rules when they confiscated Piecar's funds.

[spearmaster]

What you're saying, I presume, is that the term should state "confiscate all winnings AND any winnings generated on allowable games which may have been derived from winnings generated on disallowed games"?

It stands to reason that if you generate funds which were not properly earned, and then use those funds to generate additional winnings, that they should not be allowed to count either, no?

Her $400 bet on an allowed game was lost - and since all other funds were generated from disallowed games, her correct balance should have been zero. Any winnings generated from that point on, on allowable or disallowed games, should not be valid.

It's no different than putting Canadian quarters into a slot machine in Vegas - you are not entitled to those winnings either if caught. You can replace with washers, game tokens, anything that the machine accepts and believes to be a quarter.

Granted - modern machines no longer have this problem - but in the past older machines definitely would have this problem.

[tennis_balls]

It's no different than putting Canadian quarters into a slot machine in Vegas - you are not entitled to those winnings either if caught. You can replace with washers, game tokens, anything that the machine accepts and believes to be a quarter.

lmpmao (laughing my potty mouth ass off)

it is quite a bit different......you get caught putting some sort of slug in a Vegas slot and they're going to take you out in the desert and go old-school on you.