KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Linus]

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.

If you try to use a coupon that's expired at a store, the clerk says, "Sorry, this coupon has expired."

He does not reach into your wallet and take all your money.


Simmo - It's not just a question of "reasonable" or "unreasonable." It's also a question of where a customer wants to spend her money.

If you like having your winnings confiscated, King Neptune may be a good choice for you. If you'd prefer to risk your money at the tables, rather than over changes in the terms and conditions, you might consider playing somewhere else.


I have no interest in putting myself in a casino's shoes. When they share their profits with me, perhaps I'll reconsider. Until then, I'd prefer a casino that puts itself in my shoes, instead.

[Linus]

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.

The new "Clearplay" system also allows wagering on all games - including Blackjack, Roulette, and Video Poker. Sorry, I don't know what all casinos are using it. But it doesn't involve confiscation clauses.

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.

The Cryptos - Intercasino, William Hill, etc. - also have restricted games (Roulette, Baccarat, and Craps), but play at restricted games simply doesn't count. It doesn't result in confiscation.

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.

Casino software is what casinos want it to be. If they can warn you about hitting on a twenty, they could warn you about restricted games - if they wanted. Confiscation clauses are more profitable, though. ("If you lose, we win. If you win... we win anyway."

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.

[spearmaster]

If you try to use a coupon that's expired at a store, the clerk says, "Sorry, this coupon has expired."

He does not reach into your wallet and take all your money.

LOL.

The terms and conditions which the player read were expired, period. The point, however, is that a merchant cannot be expected to make an exception when it is clear that the customer did not meet the conditions under which he/she made a purchase. Making that exception, on the other hand, opens the merchant to possible abuse on the pretext that "well, you made an exception for so and so, why can't you make an exception for me? Besides which only 15 hours had passed, not 22...?

If, on the other hand, the customer had already made the purchase but the merchant was unable to validate the offer right away, it can then be assumed that the merchant would honor the offer.

Keep in mind the purchase and play was some 20+ hours after the terms and conditions (or offer) had expired. The player did not register the account, make a purchase, and start playing before the terms expired.

If you like having your winnings confiscated, King Neptune may be a good choice for you. If you'd prefer to risk your money at the tables, rather than over changes in the terms and conditions, you might consider playing somewhere else.

This is unfair. King Neptunes has rarely, if ever, had to exercise its right to declare winnings null and void - you make it seem as if this is the norm, when in reality it is far from common practice.

Until then, I'd prefer a casino that puts itself in my shoes, instead.

Believe it or not, that's what Micki did - she went to the trouble of validating the play and basically left some room for an exception to be made even though she was WELL within her rights to simply void all play and winnings. Despite that, the player then lost the entire deposit and bonus on her first legitimate play - end of story.

[soflat]

Believe it or not, that's what Micki did - she went to the trouble of validating the play and basically left some room for an exception to be made even though she was WELL within her rights to simply void all play and winnings. Despite that, the player then lost the entire deposit and bonus on her first legitimate play - end of story.

Huh?

She went looking play-by-play trying to find a way to void winnings from non-excluded games.

I was in favor of the casino until it was found that they voided winnings from non-excluded games.

[spearmaster]

Huh?

She went looking play-by-play trying to find a way to void winnings from non-excluded games.

I was in favor of the casino until it was found that they voided winnings from non-excluded games.

No.

She went from the start looking for where the player started playing allowed games. She then tried to determine if the player would have met the new terms and conditions by playing allowed games - but unfortunately the player lost the entire starting amount on her very first play of an allowed game.

[soflat]

Excuse me, but as I understand it, the player had net winnings on non-excluded games and they were confiscated.

It is very very simple:

a) Take net winnings from excluded games, subtract those from her balance. Those winnings are null and void.
b) Leave non-excluded winnings alone. Nothing in the T&Cs says they can confiscate them.

She did not have to go play-by-play thru the logs. But she did to confiscate winnings on allowed games. That is how she found the justification.

Bad casino!

[spearmaster]

Excuse me, but as I understand it, the player had net winnings on non-excluded games and they were confiscated.

All play from excluded games would automatically be void if the playthrough had not been completed on allowed games.

Her first LEGITIMATE play, she lost her deposit AND her bonus. That would empty her account. You cannot expect to use funds which were not rightfully earned to generate any further income.

Had she, on the other hand, completed her playthrough on allowed games, and then played excluded games, she would most definitely have been fully entitled to all her winnings.

And, if she had WON her deposit and her bonus on that first legitimate play, and subsequently completed her playthrough without losing her initial deposit and bonus, all earnings subsequent to that would also have been fully realized.

Up until the point of the player meeting the playthrough requirements, all play on excluded games would be voided.

[chuchu59]

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

Whoa! For a moment I had wanted to condemn you as a sxx maniac as I thought your were referring to Pina's avatar.

Back on topic, this thread has really dragged on with nothing new. It should now end. Actually, I am looking forward to a new thread initiated by a new player at KN who has lost his whole deposit on excluded games. Let's see how KN deals with this one when it comes and whether it refunds the losses.

[soflat]

Actually, I am looking forward to a new thread initiated by a new player at KN who has lost his whole deposit on excluded games. Let's see how KN deals with this one when it comes and whether it refunds the losses.

The T&Cs only refer to winnings on excluded games. The clause does not kick in for losses.

I think KN deserves all the criticism it got here because of its bad T&Cs and by taking the most extreme interpretation of T&Cs maximize its confiscation

They could have just "removed/confiscated [winnings from excluded games] from your account balance or withdrawals" (from T&Cs), but they got greedy and it got them a black eye.

[spearmaster]

I think KN deserves all the criticism it got here because of its bad T&Cs and by taking the most extreme interpretation of T&Cs maximize its confiscation

They could have just "removed/confiscated [winnings from excluded games] from your account balance or withdrawals" (from T&Cs), but they got greedy and it got them a black eye.

You gotta be shitting me. They did what they were perfectly entitled to. How is that "extreme interpretation"?

They did exactly what you suggest - removed winnings from excluded games. Where do you see winnings from allowed games - and if there were any, they were obtained by using said excluded winnings... WTF???