KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[mitch]

This thread needs a wooden stake.

It keeps going because members keep introducing matters that have nothing to do with the issue raised.

Refresh -

The player played games excluded by the casinos T&Cs. She obviously won nothing, then lost all her real money on her first bet on an allowed game.

The casino has not confiscated anything, there was nothing to confiscate! (would they have actually confiscated if the player had been a winner on allowed games? Who knows it's purely hypothetical)

This approach, of having excluded games, has been recommended by members on this forum as the way to go for casinos who consider advantage play bonus abuse, rather than confiscating winnings after the event by using their 'catch all' T&C.

Members keep posting that Inter, et al, would pay if the person had played this way at their casinos. (they would actually because they don't have excluded games they just have 'restricted' games) But who gives a f*** in the context of this casino and this player?

Start another thread about the merits of various casinos different T&Cs if your that bothered.

Casino is in the right, no doubt! ( and I know this because I have a first class honours degree in The Bleeding Obvious )

Die thread die. (where's my silver bullet as well!)

Mitch

[tennis_balls]

bump!

[dalzilla]

Been out of online gaming for a while but staying current on my "required reading"

Must agree... this thread needs to go away... use the silver bullet, stake, garlic, exorcism, whatever.

The horse is dead.

[henryVIII]

I think this thread is an embarrasment to King Neptunes. Losing £8,000 because a casino changed its terms overnight ... phew!! That is a very nasty way to do business. I will never play there obviously.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by mitch

This thread needs a wooden stake.

It keeps going because members keep introducing matters that have nothing to do with the issue raised.

Refresh -

The player played games excluded by the casinos T&Cs. She obviously won nothing, then lost all her real money on her first bet on an allowed game.

You say she "obviously won nothing," but in fact, she won ~8000 pounds.

You say she "lost all her real money," but money won is just as real as any other kind.

The casino has not confiscated anything, there was nothing to confiscate!

You say King Neptune confiscated nothing, but in fact, they confiscated all the winnings in the player's account.

(would they have actually confiscated if the player had been a winner on allowed games? Who knows it's purely hypothetical)

But Piecar did win money on allowed games. That money was confiscated, along with the rest of it.

This approach, of having excluded games, has been recommended by members on this forum as the way to go for casinos who consider advantage play bonus abuse, rather than confiscating winnings after the event by using their 'catch all' T&C.

King Neptune did confiscate winnings after the event.

That's true both in real life, and according to their own terms and conditions.

Spear says piecar's winnings were "automatically" confiscated. But that's not what King Neptune's terms and conditions say, and that's not what actually happened. Piecar's winnings could not have been confiscated until after King Neptune made the decision to confiscate them. Which didn't happen until after piecar had already won.

Members keep posting that Inter, et al, would pay if the person had played this way at their casinos. (they would actually because they don't have excluded games they just have 'restricted' games) But who gives a f*** in the context of this casino and this player?

Obviously, not you.

Start another thread about the merits of various casinos different T&Cs if your that bothered.

Casino is in the right, no doubt! ( and I know this because I have a first class honours degree in The Bleeding Obvious )

Die thread die. (where's my silver bullet as well!)

Mitch

[mitch]

Linus

I do not know whether you are deliberately being disengenuous or are just confused.

A lot of casinos allow you to play their games with 'Play Money' their T&Cs emphasise you cannot withdraw any 'winnings'. Are you saying you would support a player who won money under these T&Cs and then asked the casino for the money?

This is the same issue, the casino said these games were excluded with a bonus, no ifs and buts about their T&Cs.

If this player had stopped after just playing the excluded games would you be argueing that she was entitled to her 'winnings'?

I can't believe any reasonable person would think so and legally it's no contest.

Assuming you are reasonable you must therefore agree she had no winnings after playing the excluded games and therefore started playing on allowed games with just her original stake and bonus.

The question of confiscation only arises if the player played excluded games and then subsequently went on to win money on allowed games.

This player didn't, she lost all her money on her first allowed game.

As I have already said, the question of whether the casino would have actually invoked its confiscation clause is purely hypothetical and a waste of this forums time.

Mitch

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by mitch

This thread needs a wooden stake.

It keeps going because members keep introducing matters that have nothing to do with the issue raised.

Wooden stake inserted without prejudice.

Thread upgraded to closed.

Now back to the beach...