KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Linus]

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?

I don't know, soflat, you'll have to ask her.

My understanding is she got a big win on VP, but that she had winnings on some non-excluded games, as well.

[rreevy]

I've been following this thread for some time, and personally I believe this player should be paid. Admittedly she broke a rule, but the rule she broke does not benefit the casino in any way.

Based on the T&Cs, they clearly have the right to void the winnings. But there is NO RISK to the casino from players playing excluded games. They actually gain in the long run because the house edge chips away at your bankroll while your wagering doesn't contribute anything to the WR. The fact that this player won is (or should be) irrelevant. As has been pointed out before, many reputable casinos don't have a term allowing them to confiscate winnings on excluded games - because they simply don't need them! In the long run play on excluded games benefits the casino - that's not my opinion, it's a mathematically demonstrable fact.

I haven't read anything yet on this thread that makes me feel the rule in question, and thus the confiscation of her winnings, is really necessary. I have a lot of respect for Bryan, but I really can't understand why he feels the casino needs to invoke this term:

"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 can't see at all how this would be so. Am I missing something? Of course, it's possible that there's more to this than we know about...

Anyway, I won't consider playing at KN again unless/until she gets paid, or until I understand what the casino is protecting itself from by invoking this clause.

[spearmaster]

Based on the T&Cs, they clearly have the right to void the winnings.

End of story.

"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."

Put yourself in the casino's shoes. Heck, put yourself in a storekeeper's shoes when the customers make a run on him because he honored a coupon that had expired just 22 hours ago.

The player's problem is not THAT unique. Find some sympathy and then make a run through the gap. But in this case the casino rightfully refuses to open the hole.

[Simmo!]

The fact is though, the casino has acted within the rules when deciding how it bests wants to handle the issue. It's not a question of "wrong" or "right", it's a question of "reasonable" or "unreasonable".

How they responded to the situation, by refunding deposit and the bonus for the player to have another go, is up to each individual to evaluate on a fairness level.

This issue is so over IMO

[Pinababy69]

This issue is so over IMO

Simmo, where's that pic of that dead nag you had?

[Simmo!]

Simmo, where's that pic of that dead nag you had?

LOL. Post #320 - "Flogging a Dead Horse":

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/106094-post320.html

[tennis_balls]

But there is NO RISK to the casino from players playing excluded games

there is some risk and that's why some casinos choose to exclude certain games for bonus players. if you play deuces wild (especially 4-handed), you will see how crazy the swings can be. KN has probably determined that a player is more likely to build a bankroll playing Deuces Wild than with other games and so they have chosen to exclude it.

I think it's pretty wimpy of King Neptune's to exclude this game. If I'm gonna gamble, I want a casino that doesn't mind a little gamble. Still, it is their right to exclude any game they want for the bonus.

[Simmo!]

TB: I wish you'd change your avatar...everytime I see it it makes me want to fire up and play - lol

[soflat]

I think they should have voided the winnings on excluded games, but not non-excluded games.

If she won $5k from Deuces Wild, then remove $5k. But they went so far as to carefully analyze her play to justify confiscating winnings from non-excluded games. Some might see that as an intention to do right, but it is kind of pathetic in my opinion.

[vinylweatherman]

there is some risk and that's why some casinos choose to exclude certain games for bonus players. if you play deuces wild (especially 4-handed), you will see how crazy the swings can be. KN has probably determined that a player is more likely to build a bankroll playing Deuces Wild than with other games and so they have chosen to exclude it.

I think it's pretty wimpy of King Neptune's to exclude this game. If I'm gonna gamble, I want a casino that doesn't mind a little gamble. Still, it is their right to exclude any game they want for the bonus.

I expect we have university Maths graduates to blame for all this.
Last year, it was the "bet it all on one hand of Blackjack or Roulette". Easy to understand how a series of such bets with 100% bonuses gives the player an edge in the long term.
Not so sure about the Video Poker, especially the DW, where the only big positive swing is a hit on 4 Deuces, not all that common.

Bonus rules are now so technical that the Wizard is right, they attract the Bonus Players/Maths graduate. but actually could put off the casual gambler, especially one who has never tried it before.

Interestingly, Microgaming HAVE come up with a solution, but KN have decided not to use it as it allows weighted wagering on ALL games, no mistake possible, AND a clear display of what is players money and what is unearned bonus money.
I have found the reputable PLaytech group on Casinomeister have dealt with this in a far better manner. Their terms also have a list that includes Blackjack and VP games as "restricted". Instead of confiscation, ANY wager found to be present on a restricted game increases the WR by a factor of 2 or 3 on the allowed games. This is the way forward, get rid of straight confiscation, but adjust the rules to counterbalance the additional perceived risk of bets on restricted games. This will become unnecessary when the software provides for such restrictions to be set on an individual account basis.
The calls for the removal of bonuses will not happen, as this is how they get new players drawn in, they would only change if an alternative lure had the same, or better, results.