KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[chuchu59]

It really doesnt matter why casinos choose excluded games differently and the fact they should be able to gain from house edge on these games may only be one of their many considerations. They may just as well exclude everything except scratch cards but they are perfectly entitled to do this as they are the ones to pay out when players win. If they feel that it would be in their own interests to exclude certain games then that's their decision and we should respect that. We can persuade them to think otherwise but until they do we cannot just do our maths and say Hey! You are not disadvantaged by the play on these games so cough up. If the games were excluded, then non payment on these games is certainly correct.

I dont understand why, after all this furore, it still insists in it having discretion in the confiscation of winnings on excluded games unless this is set as a booby trap for new players. The correct solution is voiding all play on excluded games until you meet your WRs unless casino was to take advantage of those who lost on the excluded games during their sessions. By voiding all play the casino stands neither to gain or lose when players, whether intentionally or not play such games. In fact, this would be similar to playing in fun mode.

[Linus]

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.

That's the thing, Speer. The winnings weren't voided, automatically or otherwise, until piecar tried to cash out, which was after she won playing non-excluded games.

Here's what the terms and conditions say:

These winnings may be deemed null & void and will be removed/confiscated from your account balance or withdrawals at the sole discretion of Trident Entertainment Group.

There's nothing "automatic" about confiscating winnings. On the contrary, the terms and conditions specifically say winnings "may be" voided - not that they're automatically voided.

You can argue til the cows come home that King Neptune could have automatically confiscated piecar's winnings - but that's hypothetical.

The fact is, they didn't.

[Linus]

I dont understand why, after all this furore, it still insists in it having discretion in the confiscation of winnings on excluded games unless this is set as a booby trap for new players.

By waiting until a player tries to cash-out, the casino gets to see whether the player wins or loses, before deciding whether to void her play. If the player wins, the casino confiscates her winnings. If player loses, the casino adds her losses to its profits. That way, the casino avoids risking any its own money.

Put yourself in the casino's shoes - well, you get the picture, don't you?

[spearmaster]

That's the thing, Speer. The winnings weren't voided, automatically or otherwise, until piecar tried to cash out, which was after she won playing non-excluded games.

I'll keep this one short. The play is considered void. You don't have to wait to consider it void because it was not an allowed play in the first place.

Your definition of time and mine in this case do not agree - but I think it is quite clear that play on the games is void - and thus you cannot derive any funds from a disallowed game.

[spearmaster]

Spear - I'm happy to take you up on your offer.

Next month, after I get my Intercasino bonus, I'll play any one of their excluded games - or all three of them, if you like.

While I can't promise to win 1000's of pounds (or any money at all, for that matter), I can promise to stop playing as soon as I have a win, and to immediately switch to one of their other (included) games to finish out my bonus.

My wager is that Intercasino will not confiscate any of my winnings.

I'm so confident, I won't even ask you to lay odds, despite the fact there's a (small) chance Intercasino will stop offering me their monthly bonus, for having done this.

How much do you want to bet?

If you want to take this up, there is one ground rule - your win better be more than a buck or two because they certainly won't bother to argue over that. And surely King Neptune's would not spend the time arguing over a buck either.

You need to win $500 or more.

And the bet was whatever your stake was - so if your match bonus is $90, then the bet is $90.

As I read it, the terms used at Intercasino give them the right to revoke entitlement to the promotion, ie. confiscate the BONUS. They don't seem to give them any right to confiscate the winnings. Even so, I doubt Intercasino would revoke a bonus already given - they just wouldn't give you and bonuses in future.

How can you possibly say that? Your entitlement is revoked. Your winnings are an entitlement just as much as any future bonus offering. Are you 100% sure of this? If you are, do what piecar did - play and hope that they don't read the riot act to you.

[spearmaster]

By waiting until a player tries to cash-out, the casino gets to see whether the player wins or loses, before deciding whether to void her play. If the player wins, the casino confiscates her winnings. If player loses, the casino adds her losses to its profits. That way, the casino avoids risking any its own money.

Does it not occur to you that if the player doesn't play any excluded games, that the casino obviously must accept all play and pay in full?

It's either that or they hire pitbosses to manage hundreds or thousands of monitors to watch each player as they come in.

Your proposition above is just not correct, at least not for reputable casinos. While I don't disagree with the train of thought, you're really taking one event - which by the way, in case you needed a reminder, has already been agreed by casino and player - and wildly extrapolating other events which are either not common or don't make sense.

Ultimately however, the solution for this particular software is to simply allow operators to determine which games are disallowed and not allow any play on them. The shortcoming of such a solution is that some people will indeed come in and not realize that they've gotten a bonus which prevents them from playing on certain games - and then they will have to go through the hassle of getting the bonus removed, or they will play on some game they didn't want to play on in the first place, lose, and then leave dissatisfied - which again is NOT what any casino wants.

Until then, in any case, you have to allow the casino SOME leeway in determining which games they will and will not accept play on - and of course everything after that fact, may I point out yet again in case you needed a reminder, is discretion - which the casino is absolutely entitled to.

[Vesuvio]

If you want to take this up, there is one ground rule - your win better be more than a buck or two because they certainly won't bother to argue over that. And surely King Neptune's would not spend the time arguing over a buck either.

You need to win $500 or more.

You're simply wrong on this, Spear. To date Intercasino and similar casinos haven't invoked this type of escape clause. Sometimes they choose not to offer bonuses to particular players in future, which is their right, but they pay out winnings first. For what it's worth I once played roulette (not something I make a habit of!) at Totalbet and won £960. I met the wr on other games and withdrew no problem.

Think about this for a second. Do you think Intercasino don't count roulette, bacarrat and craps for the wr because they allow the player to build up a big bank balance They're banned because you can (generally) guarantee a profit. If you want to try and build up a large balance there are games with a much lower house edge which also count towards the wr.

[spearmaster]

You're simply wrong on this, Spear. To date Intercasino and similar casinos haven't invoked this type of escape clause. Sometimes they choose not to offer bonuses to particular players in future, which is their right, but they pay out winnings first. For what it's worth I once played roulette (not something I make a habit of!) at Totalbet and won £960. I met the wr on other games and withdrew no problem.

As I told you, you are welcome to take up the challenge. Play on excluded games - build up bankroll - then lose your deposit & bonus during playthrough on allowed games, and use the remainder of funds to complete playthrough.

If you succeed, can prove your play, and get paid, I match your deposit up to whatever the bonus was.

[chuchu59]

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.

I missed this post altogether. Spearmaster, I hope you are right and that the casino has conceded that all play on excluded games are voided and not just the winning hands. The Terms and Conditions certainly do not reflect this.

Using your example, Piecarll hops along, makes a deposit of $200 (100% matched with bonus) and comes out with the following results:

Bet $100. Lose $100. Loss sustained. Balance: $300

Bet $150. Lose $150. Loss sustained. Balance: $150

I am sorry to say this but from the casino's Ts and Cs, this is exactly what will happen if such a player comes along and loses on the excluded games. I have been mentioning this in several of my posts here. VOID ALL PLAY ON EXCLUDED GAMES. That gives everybody,casino and players alike, a level playing field. Otherwise, their accreditation here seems to be questionable.

[Vesuvio]

As I told you, you are welcome to take up the challenge. Play on excluded games - build up bankroll - then lose your deposit & bonus during playthrough on allowed games, and use the remainder of funds to complete playthrough.

If you succeed, can prove your play, and get paid, I match your deposit up to whatever the bonus was.

Spear, you're being absurd. There'd be absolutely no problem as anyone who has the slightest idea about how the bonus works there knows. Why didn't you respond to my point about the reason for Intercasino not counting those games? Do you really not see it's nothing to do with stopping players building up a bankroll?

Your comment about losing the "deposit & bonus" is a weird consideration that I've only ever heard used in this particular case at King Neptune's. Nothing of the sort comes into play at Intercasino or most other casinos.

Your challenge isn't a challenge. I'd win (and prove what most of us know), but the bonus you're offering would be unlikely to compensate for the loss of profits in playing high house edge games. Besides, I don't like high variance