KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[spearmaster]

She lost 400 pounds. Her account had upwards of 8000 at that point.

There are lots of ways of accounting for commingled funds (assuming that's even an issue.). King Neptune's method happened to be the way that was most beneficial to them.

How many times must I explain this simple matter?

Bet $100. Win $100. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400
Bet $150. Win $150. Win automatically voided. Balance: $400

...

Play on excluded games is VOIDED. It does not count. No matter how you word it, she is NOT entitled to anything for these plays regardless of what amount is shown in her account. Any winnings derived can be considered to have been obtained by deception, if you ask me - and thus subject to a lot more serious problems than just being voided. But casinos simply void plays because they have the luxury of being able to track the play - and it is entirely within their rights.

[Vesuvio]

Spear, there's clearly no point trying to reason this with you. Every single one of your responses cries out for a rebuttal, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

p.s. if I take up your offer at William Hill I can guarantee you we're going to be very old men before I win £8000 at deuces wild (or roulette or whatever the other non-wr games are)

[spearmaster]

Spear, there's clearly no point trying to reason this with you. Every single one of your responses cries out for a rebuttal, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

LMAO.

You can rebut all you like - but it still boils down to whether the casino exceeded their rights or not - and they didn't even come close.

p.s. if I take up your offer at William Hill I can guarantee you we're going to be very old men before I win £8000 at deuces wild (or roulette or whatever the other non-wr games are)

Worth a try... LOL... if you win and get paid, your deposit is doubled as a bonus from me!

[Vesuvio]

You can rebut all you like - but it still boils down to whether the casino exceeded their rights or not - and they didn't even come close.

Last, last word This is the whole problem - you're not actually responding to what I'm saying. No-one disputes the casino's within their rights not to pay this player.

[soflat]

When it says winnings from excluded games will be removed from the balance or withdrawal, that doesn't mean they have to take non-excluded game winnings. They didn't have to treat it as if they had voided excluded games winnings either (they did void them, but after the fact).

Those are very clever T&Cs and an outstanding job of using them to their fullest to avoid paying winnings on non-excluded games.

I would have just subtracted off the excluded games winnings (like the T&Cs allow for). I would never make it as a casino operator.

[spearmaster]

When it says winnings from excluded games will be removed from the balance or withdrawal, that doesn't mean they have to take non-excluded game winnings. They didn't have to treat it as if they had voided excluded games winnings either (they did void them, but after the fact).

Those are very clever T&Cs and an outstanding job of using them to their fullest to avoid paying winnings on non-excluded games.

I would have just subtracted off the excluded games winnings (like the T&Cs allow for). I would never make it as a casino operator.

Ok.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that ALL of the winnings were derived from excluded games, and that playing the allowed games actually resulted in a loss.

Would you then agree that they were within their rights?

There is NO mention at all that there were ANY winnings from allowed games. What I'm trying to say is that I fear you're chasing a point which is moot.

[soflat]

Ok.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that ALL of the winnings were derived from excluded games, and that playing the allowed games actually resulted in a loss.

Would you then agree that they were within their rights?

Absolutely!

I believe Mikki said the player built her balance up to $5-6k initially from Deuces Wild (excluded).

The player claimed there were net winnings from non-excluded games.

Casino rep also stated they were within their rights to confiscate deposit and bonus after the $400 wager.

If there were $1500 or $2000 in net winnings from non-excluded games, they should have paid that and the player probably would have been happy.

[GrandMaster]

King Neptunes should provide a detailed calculation to explain how they arrived at this result.

[spearmaster]

Absolutely!

I believe Mikki said the player built her balance up to $5-6k initially from Deuces Wild (excluded).

The player claimed there were net winnings from non-excluded games.

Casino rep also stated they were within their rights to confiscate deposit and bonus after the $400 wager.

If there were $1500 or $2000 in net winnings from non-excluded games, they should have paid that and the player probably would have been happy.

OK. Let's try another scenario, since you've accepted this one.

Let us assume that all excluded play took place before allowed play. Would you agree that the player was only entitled to her initial deposit and bonus amount when starting to play allowed games? And if she lost her deposit and bonus during this time, would she be allowed to create winnings from those funds she was not entitled to?

[spearmaster]

King Neptunes should provide a detailed calculation to explain how they arrived at this result.

What result are you looking for? That there were no legitimately earned winnings? This is speculation, of course... but if it were true obviously the casino could provide an answer - though I can't see how they could divulge the individual play of a player without the player's permission...