KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

**Micki** · 22nd May 2006, 07:46 PM

As many of you know, I rarely post on any public forum as I strongly believe the forums should be kept for players to discuss various issues openly with each other. Having said that this is one of those rare times when a player has brought their grievance to an open forum and I need to respond.

Our sign up T&C�s stated quite clearly March 1-31 (just as for May it currently states: Eligibility is limited to New Players who register a Real Money Account at King Neptune's Casino between May 1st, 2006 and May 31st, 2006. )

If the player read the T & C�s when she claimed her welcome bonus, she would have known what games were and were not excluded from play. To arrive at the Excluded games section, she had to pass the Eligibility section which includes the Promotion T & C�s start and finish date range. The website was actually updated with all of the April promotions between 10:15 and 10:45pm on March 31. XXX did not register, deposit or claim her bonus until after 9:00pm on April 1, nearly 24 hours later. (All timings are Eastern Time).

We went through all of her play very carefully before reaching the decision to void her play on the excluded games returning her balance to $200 deposit and $200 bonus to give her the opportunity to play on the permitted games. As of this morning, the $400 is still available in her account balance

Our decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of money involved, had her play been legitimate we would have happily paid her.
Micki

**mikepipe** · 22nd May 2006, 07:54 PM

that sounds reasonable to me. And that should in my opinion be accepted as a not only correct but even good decision.

**chuchu59** · 22nd May 2006, 08:03 PM

Micki,

You mentioned that you went through the player's play very carefully before the decision to void all play on the excluded games. What about play on 'non-excluded games'? Why were they also voided? There is no mention of this. The bonus and deposit is still in the player's account and he can now play on 'non-excluded games'. We are told that the additional winnings on non-excluded games previously played were also voided because the player had used funds accumulated from winnings on excluded games to achieve this. Does this mean that the player had lost his deposit in the process and thus only used the winnings to generate additional winnings. Otherwise, at least a portion of his additional winnings are legitimate and should be paid.

**elscrabinda** · 22nd May 2006, 09:23 PM

Micki, your response adds nothing to what we already know.

Noone doubts that the terms cover you and that you are allowed to do it. What I want to know is WHY exclude games with a house edge instead of just not counting them towards wagering and WHY of all the games to ban choose Deuces Wild with (for Video Poker) an obscenely high house edge?

I want to play at a casino where I don't have to have my lawyer present to make sure that you are not going to confiscate winnings for the flimsiest of reasons. I used to trust your casino, now I do not. I'm sure the same applies for many people on here.

**Casinomeister** · 22nd May 2006, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by elscrabinda

I want to play at a casino where I don't have to have my lawyer present to make sure that you are not going to confiscate winnings for the flimsiest of reasons. I used to trust your casino, now I do not. I'm sure the same applies for many people on here.

How are clear terms and conditions considered "flimsy"? How could you not trust a casino that is clear and concise and has reviewed this thoroughly?

The only reason we're having this discussion is because a player failed to read the terms and conditions when she signed up. This is the player's responsibility and no one else's.

**Pinababy69** · 22nd May 2006, 09:34 PM

I was talking to someone last night about this, and mentioned that in my mind a fair resolution would have been to have the deposit plus bonus returned to the player's account, and allow them to have another "kick at the can". I didn't know that this had already been done, I was under the assumption that all funds had been confiscated. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have no problem with this resolution. I guess it's a hard lesson, and something I don't do myself, but when you signup at a new casino, you need to read the T&C's WHEN you make your deposit.

Those links that Winbig posted are a very good idea as well.

**mikepipe** · 22nd May 2006, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Pinababy69

I was talking to someone last night about this, and mentioned that in my mind a fair resolution would have been to have the deposit plus bonus returned to the player's account, and allow them to have another "kick at the can". I didn't know that this had already been done, I was under the assumption that all funds had been confiscated. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have no problem with this resolution. I guess it's a hard lesson, and something I don't do myself, but when you signup at a new casino, you need to read the T&C's WHEN you make your deposit.

Those links that Winbig posted are a very good idea as well.

Maybe minority - but we are at least two of us (see my post above)

**kenneth2816** · 22nd May 2006, 09:41 PM

Pina, the player's original post said the account "was zeroed out", which needed clarification. In this case, the casino made the only decision it could make.

**Pinababy69** · 22nd May 2006, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by kenneth2816

Pina, the player's original post said the account "was zeroed out", which needed clarification. In this case, the casino made the only decision it could make.

Which explains why I "assumed" that ALL funds had been confiscated. Thanks for the clarification. I'm gonna have to start reading threads a couple of times before posting.

**Vesuvio** · 22nd May 2006, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Pinababy69

I was talking to someone last night about this, and mentioned that in my mind a fair resolution would have been to have the deposit plus bonus returned to the player's account, and allow them to have another "kick at the can".

It's one of my pet peeves when people make statements like, "you got the deposit back so you're not out any money". This is usually said when the player had met the casino's terms and so the money was his - as soon as terms are met there's no such thing as "bonus money" anymore, just the player's balance.

This situation is different, of course, and it's probably as much as the player can expect. Casinos will always use any terms they can to void large payouts. It's still a bit offensive to suggest restoring the deposit and bonus is an act of generosity, though - the player's instantly losing �7600, and probably �8000 in the end as of course the chances are he'll lose the deposit (some people are talking as though playing deuces wild somehow meant the player could make 1000s risk-free).