KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Slotster!]

I don't smell a rat as such, just think if all the facts are as they are represented here - it's a real shame for the player, and poor show from a casino previously held in high regard.

I agree there are times for sticking hard and fast to the rules - this isn't one of them imho; based on the info presented to date.

If there's nothing we're missing - the casino could do themselves an awful lot of good here, without being wide open to bonus abuse.

[piecar]

King Neptunes did return my deposit. And since I played Deuces Wild first, ALL of my winnings were deemed 'null & void' per King Neptunes discretion.

Look, I admitted that I made an honest mistake. I looked at the terms on March 31st in the evening and deposited and played on April 1st in the evening without re-checking the terms. This is not the issue here.

I am an honest person and an honest player.

What I am looking for here is King Neptunes to reconsider their decision on their term, "...these [excluded game] 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."

Again, I "looked" on March 31st and "leapt" on April 1st. I was hoping for a little more leeway from Trident.

But you know, as stated earlier in this thread, King Neptunes is a reputable group with a fair and professional management. So I was hoping after ten or so e-mails back and forth between them and me that a positive situation would emerge.

Also keep in mind that I did not breach the old terms (the terms that I saw) in any way. If I had breached those terms I certainly would not be posting on this board.

Thanks.

[GOCC]

What I dont understand and have thought this for a while with the ever changing world of online casinos is WHY isnt there a central organisation, Maybe Casinomeister or ecogra more likely, that watchdogs these T&C changes.

OK, casinos change there T&Cs, thats fluly acceptable, but who says they were diplayed this way on their site.

If someone got an email from a casino to say we have changed our T&Cs, they went to the site and observed the changes, once observed then these changes become witnessed.

Its OK a casino saying we changed them at blah blah, but were they reported like this on the site. You cant say to me oh yes they must have been because if this is the case, why do people advise taking screen shots of T&Cs

[Casinomeister]

CM - What's your opinion on this clause in general for excluded games, and the resulting removal of ALL winnings?

It's something that we have to live with as long as we have bonuses. If one plays excluded games and generates winnings that generates additional winnings, even on included games, then the winnings should be voided. These are common bonus rules that are omnipresent.

You mention they're right up there with 32RED... Can you ever imagine Ed and Pat and co pulling this sort of hard line with a player, for playing a version of video poker that they shouldn't.

If they generated winnings that were played out as well, then yes. And I don't think it was so hard-lined - it's just an unfortunate incident. No one likes to see this happen - but it happens.

People are only suggesting good will could be shown here because the player's obviously going by the terms and conditions that were there a few hours before he started playing. He clearly had no intention of playing disallowed games but got caught out. £8000's a lot to pay for an honest mistake.

Perhaps there would have been more "good will" allotted here if this was not a new player. They don't know her, didn't know her intentions, and deal with player bonus issues on a daily basis. It's not fair to surmise that this happened merely a few hours past midnight, because it didn't.

If this was your casino, how would have you dealt with this? Would you let it slide knowing that you would be setting a precedent that may jeopardize you and your employees business? Or stick to your T&Cs?

[chuchu59]

King Neptunes is not paying me almost 8,000 GBP.

I read the Terms & Conditions at King Neptunes website and the only video pokers on the list of excluded games were Aces video poker and jacks or better video poker. Deuces Wild was NOT on the list of excluded games in regards to the bonus money.

I deposited and played on April 1st in the evening.

I played slots, cyber stud poker, tri card poker, and deuces wild video poker.

They sent me an email that they changed their terms at midnight on March 31st.

Here is a copy of the email they sent me:


Hello xxxxxx

We carried out a thorough investigation to ensure, like we also do, that we deliver what we promise. When you claim a welcome/sign up bonus, you are advised to read the Terms & Conditions of that bonus when you claim it. We never change the Terms & Conditions of any promotion without advising our customers accordingly. We can not notify would-be customers, because we do not know who they are if they have not registered yet. The new Terms & Conditions took effect on March 31 at midnight; you registered, made your first deposit and claimed your bonus in the evening of April 1. It was your responsibility to read the Terms & Conditions that govern the £200 bonus when you claimed the bonus.

You played on Deuces Wild 10 Play Power Poker, a restricted game, with the £200 welcome bonus you claimed, before you played on any other games, including any appropriate games. Since you accumulated winnings with your game play on an excluded game, these winnings have been deemed null and void. Because you continued to play with these void credits to accumulate your additional winnings, all of your winnings have been deemed null and void. We have removed your totaled £7,794 in winnings from your withdrawal and your account balance based on our terms and conditions for the welcome bonus.

We are sorry this is not the answer you wish to hear.

You will notice that we copied eCOGRA on this issue. We have earned our reputation by always conducting our business ethically and with integrity. We are also strong advocates for responsible and regulated gaming; were one of the 1st casino group's to earn the eCOGRA Seal of approval (http://www.ecogra.org) and have received numerous independent awards.

Regards

xxxxxx


I told them, "Look, I saw different terms and I played by the rules so why are you doing this to me?!?"

I had more than 8000 GBP in my account and they reduced my balance to ZERO. I don't know if what they are saying about the Deuces Wild is true or not; all I remember is that I before I played only Aces and Jacks or Better video pokers were excluded, but deuces wild was okay.

The only thing I am guilty of is an honest mistake.

Even if they are right and they changed terms hours before I deposited and played, is it right to just void my winnings? Where is the goodwill? Someone wins big at your casino and you just decide just not to pay them?

King Neptunes told me that they informed eCogra of the situation. I haven't heard anything from eCogra so I assume that they are siding with King Neptunes. But I think eCogra is a sham anyway, especially after reading all of the complaints against them in the online forums...

If anyone can help me with this, I could sure use the help.

Wow! So many posts with supporters for both sides. I will just chip in to confuse things further.

First, unlucky April Fool's Day for the player but if Neptune just changed their Ts and Cs the day before, tough luck although I personally believe the casino should have given players a 1-week grace period at their 'discretion'. After all, the players can hardly benefit from playing Deuces Wild as there is still a slight house edge and the more the play the more advantageous it is to the player.

Second, it only states that the winnings from excluded games will be 'null and void' but it doesnt mention the additional winnings from other games. Logically,if all the additional winnings were accumulated through 'excluded game winnings' or the sign-up bonus they could be confiscated as well but it should be remembered that there was a $200 deposit as well. How can the casino be certain that the money was not won with the deposit. There is nothing in the Ts and Cs which state that the deposit cannot be used to generate the additional winnings. If, for example, a $500 wager is placed on an even money bet and the player won, wouldnt this mean that the winner should win $200 and the casino would confiscate $300. Then at the very next bet, the player starts with $400 of his own money.

Since the casino is being quite mean, the player should make a claim for the loyalty points which are accumulated through play and are not mentioned in the relevant Ts and Cs. With such an extensive playthrough, you might get something substantial.

See, I told you I would make things more confusing. It's up to Neptune to work out a satisfactory compromise.

[elscrabinda]

Again I do not doubt that they are within their rights to do this. Less reputable Playtech casinos are also within their rights to use "management reserves the right to screw you over" clauses to seize winnings. That doesn't mean that anyone here thinks they are RIGHT to do it, nor that seizing winnings is the hallmark of a quality casino.

If anyone can tell me a legitimate reason for even having this term then I will be grateful. The only reason I can see is to have an excuse to seize winnings. The game has a massive 3.23% House edge (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). I would be very interested to know how to turn that house edge into the players favour but I don't think its possible.

A legitimate casino should not put in clauses whos only purpose is to trip up players. There is no justification for banning it as it is costing the player money to play. Restrict any games you want to cover wagering requirements but unless you want to have problems like this then do not ban them outright. It does no one any favours in the long run

People have said "he should have got screenshots and checked the terms right before he played". Yes, if I'm playing at some godawful RTG or similar then I expect to have to do that. At reputable casinos (which I wholeheartedly believed KN was) then as Slotster says, I expect the experience to be a little more fun and not have a dodgy manager just waiting for me to accidentally play the wrong game.

I'm not saying that KN are rogue or criminal. Their terms cover them to do this. I am saying that a previously good operation has lost my trust and I'm sure that of many others here.

[Vesuvio]

It's something that we have to live with as long as we have bonuses. If one plays excluded games and generates winnings that generates additional winnings, even on included games, then the winnings should be voided. These are common bonus rules that are omnipresent.

You're simply wrong here, Bryan. The vast majority of casinos, and certainly reputable casinos, don't mind any wagering on excluded games. It just doesn't count towards the wagering requirement.

If this was your casino, how would have you dealt with this? Would you let it slide knowing that you would be setting a precedent that may jeopardize you and your employees business? Or stick to your T&Cs?

Letting players play on games that don't count towards the wagering requirement isn't going to jeopardize anyone's business. This isn't a loop hole that allows players to gain an extra advantage.

And as mentioned before, the T&Cs allow discretion - paying this player isn't against the T&Cs, though it would cost the casino £8000, which is the only reason they're unlikely to budge.

[Slotster!]

I do take on board the new player thing, what with casino's that offer bonuses needing to be ultra careful (this backs up my loyalty bonus argument!!)

It's something that we have to live with as long as we have bonuses. If one plays excluded games and generates winnings that generates additional winnings, even on included games, then the winnings should be voided. These are common bonus rules that are omnipresent.

If they generated winnings that were played out as well, then yes. And I don't think it was so hard-lined - it's just an unfortunate incident. No one likes to see this happen - but it happens.

If this was your casino, how would have you dealt with this? Would you let it slide knowing that you would be setting a precedent that may jeopardize you and your employees business? Or stick to your T&Cs?

These rules aren't omnipresent though! More to the point though, they weren't even PRESENT 24 hours earlier!! I can imagine myself being in exactly the same position. Check out the casino, yep - they seem ok, I'll give them a go in the tomorrow... Oh bugger.

Seriously - this is a real shame. If it was my casino, I would've genuinely dealt with it differently. Taking as read that this guy didn't hammer the 'banned' game, and wandered in and out of the various games like a normal casino user would - I'd look after them as a customer.

I can see it from both sides, I can also see why I won't play there as a result. .. Why risk it? What if they decide to change the T&C's again tomorrow?

Like I said up there - I'm eager to hear the casino operators perspective on this!

[chuchu59]

It's something that we have to live with as long as we have bonuses. If one plays excluded games and generates winnings that generates additional winnings, even on included games, then the winnings should be voided. These are common bonus rules that are omnipresent.


If they generated winnings that were played out as well, then yes. And I don't think it was so hard-lined - it's just an unfortunate incident. No one likes to see this happen - but it happens.


Perhaps there would have been more "good will" allotted here if this was not a new player. They don't know her, didn't know her intentions, and deal with player bonus issues on a daily basis. It's not fair to surmise that this happened merely a few hours past midnight, because it didn't.

If this was your casino, how would have you dealt with this? Would you let it slide knowing that you would be setting a precedent that may jeopardize you and your employees business? Or stick to your T&Cs?

If we stick to the Terms and Conditions, there is nothing that says that additional winnings can be confiscated if you had won with excluded games winnings. It only seems logical to come to this conclusion. However, would this player purposefully build up a balance through playing excluded games and then use then use this to generate additional winnings. Certainly not because he might have a greater chance playing even money games like Baccarat to do so.

Common bonus rules state where a bonus is claimed, the deposit is played first and only if there is no balance left will the bonus then be played. Thus, the additional winnings could probably have been won with the deposit and so it is unreasonable to confiscate all winnings. A balance has to be struck somewhere. The casino should use playcheck to deduce how much had been won with the deposit. This way, at least they can show they are not taking advantage of the player's oversight in reading the Ts and Cs. Otherwise, if strictly adherence to them are necessary, all additional winnings from 'non-excluded' games should be returned to the player simply because nothing about this was stated in the Terms.

[Simmo!]

I think most casinos would probably accept that if it were a loyal player in this situation, they would probably pay up for goodwill.

Unfortunately for the majority of honest players, bonus hunters/abusers have made the whole bonus situation much more difficult to handle for both for players and for casinos. Consequently, rightly or wrongly, we are all tarred with the same brush and we get unfortunate threads like this. It's also why I tend to keep away from threads where people advocate bonus hunting in case I lose the plot

It's my opinion that casinos that attract players based on bonuses can't complain when threads like this crop up. I think they expect it to be honest. It's inevitable, human nature even, that people will take them and most will try to profit from them, obviously. But it doesn't surprise me when, if the player even slightly falls foul of the T&C's, the casino enforces them. Casinos are businesses after all and in the majority of cases, all decisions are made with a view to supporting the viability of the business model that investors have subscribed to.

A comment directly related to this case: if the winnings made from Deuces Wild contributed to further winnings on other games, that is where there is a problem.