KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

**spearmaster** · 8th June 2006, 11:36 AM

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?

Every casino has a right to choose which games it will allow and which games it doesn't want to allow. It matters not WHY they choose these games. This is why I am not paying any attention to the side discussion about edge or games or anything that does NOT concern the issue at hand.

**Vesuvio** · 8th June 2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by spearmaster

Every casino has a right to choose which games it will allow and which games it doesn't want to allow. It matters not WHY they choose these games. This is why I am not paying any attention to the side discussion about edge or games or anything that does NOT concern the issue at hand.

The "issue" in my post is your claim that Intercasino operate the same confiscation policy as King Neptune's. They don't. If you won't accept that on trust then the games allowed should convince you (see my post again - I don't see the point repeating arguments you ignore). If that doesn't persuade you then I can't help.

**rreevy** · 8th June 2006, 01:41 PM

I'd be happy to e-mail Intercasino and ask them whether they'd void winnings for playing an excluded game, even if you subsequently met the WR on allowed ones. I'd be prepared to wager that they wouldn't void winnings in such cases.

soflat, thanks ever so much for your post. I realise I've made a mistake in my approach to this question. While betting on a single number on roulette is not a profitable play in itself, I omitted to take account of the fact that you only have to meet the WR at the one place you don't bust out, not at the 36 where you do. You lose £14,400, but £7,200 of that is bonus money so you only lose £7,200 of your own. When you win the £14,000, you are actually up £6800. Let's say these bonuses have a WR of 20x D+B on slots only. You now have to wager £8,000 on slots to clear the WR. Assuming a 5% slots edge you lose £400, for an overall net profit of £6,400 (or £6,200 if the bonus is sticky).

Ordinarily, such a bonus would have no positive expectation. Assuming the edge on slots is about 5%, a slots-only bonus with a 20x WR (which is not uncommon) would lead to you losing your bonus and deposit at about the point you meet the WR, on average.

So I was quite, quite wrong. It IS possible to turn an unprofitable bonus into a profitable one. This is simply because you bust out earlier at most places with the above strategy, so the total amount wagered is less.

Mitch, I owe you an apology.

**derelict** · 8th June 2006, 03:29 PM

There is an advantage to bust with a bonus, but my argument is that this term has no reason to exist because the same strategy could be used with virtually any other game in the casino.

With these conditions, they have set up a situation where the software will accept bets where wins are voided and losses are not. While they are within their right according to the terms, the terms are simply not fair and should be condemned.

Spear, your post about the cryptologics is batty. Their terms are quite fair and should be a model for other operations.

**Vesuvio** · 8th June 2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by rreevy

Ordinarily, such a bonus would have no positive expectation. Assuming the edge on slots is about 5%, a slots-only bonus with a 20x WR (which is not uncommon) would lead to you losing your bonus and deposit at about the point you meet the WR, on average.

It's a bit counter-intuitive, but you're actually expected to make a profit (over a good number of casinos) even with the 5% edge and a 20x wr. You don't usually meet the wr (because you bust out early), so overall you lose less to the house edge than if you were wagering the full wr.

**spearmaster** · 8th June 2006, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by derelict

Spear, your post about the cryptologics is batty. Their terms are quite fair and should be a model for other operations.

How is my post batty?

Cryptologic's terms are even more vague than King Neptunes - and yet you want to hold that up as a model for terms and conditions?

It is simply amazing that anyone could call "entitlement" a clear description of any sort. If I didn't know better, I could swear this whole thing is about "argue with Spear no matter what" rather than "interpretation of terms and conditions".

**derelict** · 8th June 2006, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by spearmaster

How is my post batty?

Cryptologic's terms are even more vague than King Neptunes - and yet you want to hold that up as a model for terms and conditions?

It is simply amazing that anyone could call "entitlement" a clear description of any sort. If I didn't know better, I could swear this whole thing is about "argue with Spear no matter what" rather than "interpretation of terms and conditions".

That's the standard escape clause BS that everyone has. So long as it isn't invoked, I don't consider it an issue. Here are the terms I was talking about:

http://www.intercasino.com/promotions/deposit/

Directly on the page about the bonus, the terms governing their promotion are bulleted and easily understood. In particular, this one:

Baccarat Roulette and Craps do not count towards your minimum wagering requirement.

No misunderstandings and no confiscated winnings. Everyone is happy. I would love to take your money but I think from the terms on that page and the experiences of all the people playing this extremely popular promotion, I have no idea why you'd believe that they would sieze funds for play on excluded games. I saw Ryan Hartley was logged in earlier, maybe we could ask him for confirmation.

**Pinababy69** · 8th June 2006, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by spearmaster

If I didn't know better, I could swear this whole thing is about "argue with Spear no matter what" rather than "interpretation of terms and conditions".

Ya think?

**spearmaster** · 8th June 2006, 06:35 PM

So only Linus wants to take up my challenge - the rest of you just wanna ASK?

What the heck do you think they're going to tell you?

"WTF were you thinking? Of course we confiscate winnings derived from play on non-permitted games..."

...um... NOT...

**Vesuvio** · 8th June 2006, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by spearmaster

So only Linus wants to take up my challenge - the rest of you just wanna ASK?

There's no need to ask, Spear, as regular players know how these casinos work. Note I've even done what you're on about - played roulette, got a big balance and then met the wr with games that count - and been paid no problem.

No-one's arguing with you for the hell of it; you're just showing staggering perseverance in claiming something we all know to be untrue. It looks a bit silly.