KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Linus]

What I'm saying is there's no "winnings from winnings" rule in their terms and conditions. They could easily have put that rule in their terms if they wanted - but they didn't.

If it's the player's responsibility to read and understand the terms that are actually there, surely it's the casino's obligation to actually write the terms they intend to follow, isn't it?


As far as whether such a rule would "stand to reason" - piecar wasn't playing with canadian quarters or slugs - she was playing with real American money (sorry Canadians - I know your money is "real" too - in Canada). Money the casino had accepted, and intended to keep, had she lost.

And I don't understand why you and KN assume the money she lost was her deposit. It could just have well been money from the excluded game. Isn't this a purely arbitrary?



Edit: IOW, it's not the player's responsibility to read into the contract terms that aren't actually there, especially rules that might make sense to the casino, but don't make sense to a player.

re-edit: Just remembered she was playing with pounds. Oh well. It was still real money, that the casino was happy to accept.

[spearmaster]

What I'm saying is there's no "winnings from winnings" rule in their terms and conditions. They could easily have put that rule in their terms if they wanted - but they didn't.

If it's the player's responsibility to read and understand the terms that are actually there, surely the casino has an obligation to actually write the terms they intend to follow, isn't it?

I think it's common sense - but there's no reason why that can't be written into the T&Cs as well.

As far as whether such a rule would "stand to reason" - piecar wasn't playing with canadian quarters or slugs - she was playing with real American money (sorry Canadians - I know your money is "real" too - in Canada). Money the casino had accepted, and intended to keep, had she lost.

LOL.

The money is virtual, hardly greenbacks... and the first legitimate bet she placed, she lost all of those funds.

And I don't understand why you and KN assume the money she lost was her deposit. It could just have well been money from the excluded game. Isn't this a purely arbitrary?

It stands to reason that none of her money was legitimate except for the deposit plus the bonus, until she made that first bet on an allowed game - so no, I wouldn't call that arbitrary. One can also presume that the winnings were automatically considered void upon the conclusion of each bet on a disallowed game - and thus she had no right to use these funds, only the funds which she was legitimately entitled to in the first place - and she lost it all on one bet.

Oh - and by the way, she was playing with pounds, not dollars

[Linus]

I think it's common sense - but there's no reason why that can't be written into the T&Cs as well.

You're right, it could have been written in. But - it wasn't.

LOL.

The money is virtual, hardly greenbacks...

The bottom line is that it was real money - not slugs.

and the first legitimate bet she placed, she lost all of those funds.

All the bets were legitimate, in the sense she was playing with real money, which she could have lost. Had she lost, none of the bets would have been considered "illegitimate," at least not by King Neptune.

It stands to reason that none of her money was legitimate except for the deposit plus the bonus, until she made that first bet on an allowed game - so no, I wouldn't call that arbitrary. One can also presume that the winnings were automatically considered void upon the conclusion of each bet on a disallowed game - and thus she had no right to use these funds, only the funds which she was legitimately entitled to in the first place - and she lost it all on one bet.

Oh - and by the way, she was playing with pounds, not dollars

"common sense"
"It stands to reason"
"One can presume"

You seem to have switched from being a strict constructionalist, to an activist.

The bottom line, though, is that the casino can't just assume and presume terms into existence. Especially since they're the ones who get to write them in the first place.

Would you be ok with players presuming terms that weren't there?


And I have to ask: "Automatically considered void" - by whom? Certainly not by the player. No player willingly plays a game where her winnings are void, but her losses are real.

If the casino had actually voided them (rather than just "considering" them void) there's no way piecar would have kept playing.

[spearmaster]

"common sense"
"It stands to reason"
"One can presume"

You seem to have switched from being a strict constructionalist, to an activist.

LOL.

Is what I said *not* common sense?

The bottom line, though, is that the casino can't just assume and presume terms into existence. Especially since they're the ones who get to write them in the first place.

Would you be ok with players presuming terms that weren't there?

And I have to ask: "Automatically considered void" - by whom? Certainly not by the player. No player willingly plays a game where her winnings are void, but her losses are real.

She willingly played the game, no matter how you look at it LOL. The T&Cs say that any winnings on excluded games may be declared null and void. So once the game is played, and resolved, it can be declared void.

If the casino had actually voided them (rather than just "considering" them void) there's no way piecar would have kept playing.

Software limitation, unfortunately. I'm sure this will be resolved in the future when Microgaming get serious about giving operators these necessary options.

The alternative would be to check after each play - manually - which does neither the casino nor the player any favors.

Anyhow, theory works both ways - you can find arguments to support the player just as easily as you can find arguments to support the casino. But under the circumstances, the casino is still within its rights to enforce a term which was clearly stated up front - so there isn't really much point of discussing the ifs and hads and whatnot in hindsight.

I do hope that they will take many of the recommendations in here and where possible implement the necessary changes to show that they do listen to players.

[Linus]

LOL.

Is what I said *not* common sense?

I don't think it's common sense to say the first time she lost any money, that money was somehow automatically the money she'd deposited, and not the money she had won.

But under the circumstances, the casino is still within its rights to enforce a term which was clearly stated up front - so there isn't really much point of discussing the ifs and hads and whatnot in hindsight.

I do agree it doesn't really matter.

Whether they took the money because of what's in their T&C's or because of "common sense" - either way it's gone.

Hopefully other players won't make the same mistake piecar made.

Had she been playing at Intercasino or 32Red, instead of King Neptune, she'd be 8000 pounds richer right now. Both of those casinos offer nice monthly bonuses, in addition to not confiscating players' winnings.

[spearmaster]

I don't think it's common sense to say the first time she lost any money, that money was somehow automatically the money she'd deposited, and not the money she had won.

That's not what was said. The first time she had a legitimate play, she lost. Had she won, she obviously could have continued to finish the playthrough requirements and she would have had a very strong claim to her winnings - and I bet that she would have then been paid.

Hopefully other players won't make the same mistake piecar made.

I hope so too. There must be a better and easier way of doing these things.

Had she been playing at Intercasino or 32Red, instead of King Neptune, she'd be 8000 pounds richer right now. Both of those casinos offer nice monthly bonuses, in addition to not confiscating players' winnings.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too sure of that. I don't know if it was ever established that she did in fact meet the playthrough requirements on allowed games anyhow.

As for monthly bonuses - Trident had a very nice CashCard system which unfortunately ended May 31. I lost track of how many times I turned these CashCard bonuses into winnings...

[piecar]

Hi,

I am getting correspondence from Micki and she is accusing me of blackmailing and threatening King Neptunes. I apologize to her if I came across that way. All I am doing (and all I am able to do) is to tell my story to the public both here and through word-of-mouth. I will let the public come to their own conclusion on the matter.

Call it synchronicity--here's something I found at wizardofodds.com:

http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/165


One more thing, shouldn't I be entitled to at least the winnings for my play at King Neptunes slot machines, cyberstud poker, and tri card poker? How can they confiscate those winnings as well?

This whole situation stinks. Why can't they just pay me and get on with life?

[Pinababy69]

This whole situation stinks. Why can't they just pay me and get on with life?

Why can't you accept that you are NOT going to get paid, and get on with life? I was very sympathetic to your case originally. I sided with the casino, but I did feel bad for you, and felt that you had made an honest mistake. However, with what you just posted, you have lost any good feeling I may have had. I agree with Micki wholeheartedly, what you are doing IS bordering on blackmail. This thread is 30 pages long, enough is enough. If you want to see true sleaze in living colour, check out the Jackpot Factory thread.

Whoever believes that Neptune's was wrong in this case, then take Slotster's advice, and just don't play there. To allow this to go on is just plain silly, IMO.

[chuchu59]

Hi,

I am getting correspondence from Micki and she is accusing me of blackmailing and threatening King Neptunes. I apologize to her if I came across that way. All I am doing (and all I am able to do) is to tell my story to the public both here and through word-of-mouth. I will let the public come to their own conclusion on the matter.

Call it synchronicity--here's something I found at wizardofodds.com:

http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/165


One more thing, shouldn't I be entitled to at least the winnings for my play at King Neptunes slot machines, cyberstud poker, and tri card poker? How can they confiscate those winnings as well?

This whole situation stinks. Why can't they just pay me and get on with life?

Piecar,

The casino was always within their rights not to pay you for winnings on excluded games and their exercised these rights. As for winnings on other games, from day one I have been asking how the winnings on these can be voided as well. With Micki's reply that your first bet amounting to $400 which coincidentally amounted to your full deposit and bonus was lost so in theory, you shouldnt have any more funds to bet with since the balance in your account was won on excluded games. So they are not confiscating the winnings. It's only that they are not winnings in the first place. Of course you might argue why it should be your deposit and bonus that was used for that very first bet of $400. However, if you consider that your winnings on excluded games had been voided that would have left you only $400 to start with.

Micki,

I hope you are reading this. Unless Piecar threatened that she will continue posting until you pay, I believe that stating she is blackmailing the casino is a bit over the top. This thread has attracted posters to both sides more than what I have seen before at this site and shows that it is not a one-sided issue. What the casino should probably do now is to set the terms straight ie voiding all play instead of winnings on excluded games and doing everything possible to give prior notice players of impending changes to the terms and conditions.

[Linus]

Hi,

I am getting correspondence from Micki and she is accusing me of blackmailing and threatening King Neptunes.

I wouldn't worry about Micki. She's King Neptune's representative.

It's her job to try to justify what they've done. Or, failing that, to cover it up.

I apologize to her if I came across that way.

I don't think you owe anyone an apology. Most folks - having had 8000 pounds confiscated - would be much more angry about it than you have been.

All I am doing (and all I am able to do) is to tell my story to the public both here and through word-of-mouth. I will let the public come to their own conclusion on the matter.

You're doing the right thing. You can't control what King Neptune does, or doesn't do, but at least other people will have the benefit of knowing what has happened to you.

Call it synchronicity--here's something I found at wizardofodds.com:

http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/165


One more thing, shouldn't I be entitled to at least the winnings for my play at King Neptunes slot machines, cyberstud poker, and tri card poker? How can they confiscate those winnings as well?

I'd like to see you get at least your winnings from the non-excluded games.

This whole situation stinks. Why can't they just pay me and get on with life?