KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

**spearmaster** · 2nd June 2006, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by piecar

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

Well, is it true or not?

I know Micki well enough to state that she is not a bullshitter and that she would not unjustly accuse someone of something if it wasn't true - so I am inclined to believe that this is more than just a little bit of smoke.

**elscrabinda** · 2nd June 2006, 02:23 PM

Good to see the Wiz has picked up on this. Would be great to have a ticker counter running to show how much business they've lost from this sorry episode. Impossible of course but it would give me a great deal of morbid entertainment

**Linus** · 2nd June 2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by spearmaster

Well, is it true or not?

I know Micki well enough to state that she is not a bullshitter and that she would not unjustly accuse someone of something if it wasn't true - so I am inclined to believe that this is more than just a little bit of smoke.

I think it's kind of sad, that King Neptune is reduced to accusing her of blackmail, because she won't just be quiet about it.

You'd think she was the one who took the money from them.

**spearmaster** · 2nd June 2006, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Linus

You'd think she was the one who took the money from them.

???

She is the one trying to take money from them. She was wrong, knows it, admits it, yet she STILL wants the money.

**silcnlayc** · 2nd June 2006, 07:03 PM

She is the one trying to take money from them. She was wrong, knows it, admits it, yet she STILL wants the money.

Ditto to all of the above...

**mitch** · 2nd June 2006, 07:41 PM

This case is simple isn't it?

Follow the bets.

Player starts with £400, makes a bet on a game which is excluded. Player wins but the winnings are automatically voided still leaving the player with £400. This sequence of bets continues and the player obviously never builds up any 'pot' of winnings they are being voided one after the other.

Finally, the player plays a non excluded game, she still has the £400 she started with and bets it all on the first play, she loses, she now has nothing.

Anything that happens after this event is irrelevant, just play money after this I am afraid.

Two things also bother me about this case. She denies being aware of the T&Cs but plays in GBP. The sort of thing only clued up players do in a serious hunt for bonus money. Then on the first play on a non-excluded game bets exactly her deposit and bonus money in one go. If this wasn't the table max (and I don't know this) then what are the odds that this was just a coincidence? Any of you gamblers out there like to lay odds on this happening by accident.

The Casino has subsequently given the player a gift of £400 to play again and the player comes whinging to the board. Is she jokeing this is a kind offer by the Casino IMO.

Mitch

**soflat** · 2nd June 2006, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by piecar

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?

Hi Piecar,

Just curious, how much did you win on excluded games, and what was your ending balance?

Also, did you win or lose overall on the non-excluded games?

**Linus** · 2nd June 2006, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by mitch

This case is simple isn't it?

I agree that it's simple.

Player deposits real money into her King Neptune account, trusting that they'll pay her if she wins.

She makes an honest mistake, and plays a game that had become excluded the night before.

She happens to win.

Had she lost, King Neptune would not have refunded any of her money. But because she won, King Neptune confiscates all her winnings.

Not only from her excluded game, but from all her non-excluded games as well.

King Neptune is certainly within its rights - as you guys keep insisting.

After all, they wrote the T&C's, and it's in their "sole discretion."

And it's not like there's some court out there, that piecar can appeal to.

As a practical matter, it's within King Neptune's "sole discretion" to pay piecar - or any player - whether they write that in their Terms and Conditions or not.

**soflat** · 2nd June 2006, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Linus

Had she lost, King Neptune would not have refunded any of her money. But because she won, King Neptune confiscates all her winnings.

Not only from her excluded game, but from all her non-excluded games as well.

What is the breakdown of the winnings? How much excluded game winnings did they confiscate and how much was non-excluded?

I thought she won a lot on Deuces Wild, then made a big losing bet on 3-Card Poker. Did she get on a winning streak with the non-excluded games?