KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[Casinomeister]

She has her deposit AND bonus waiting for her to have another go at it - as far as I know.

[elscrabinda]

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?

This particular term and condition should not exist! As no one has given a justification for its existence I can only assume that it is there only to trip up players and confiscate their winnings. A trustworthy casino should not have a pointless and pathetic term like this in the first place.

[Casinomeister]

This particular term and condition should not exist! As no one has given a justification for its existence I can only assume that it is there only to trip up players and confiscate their winnings. A trustworthy casino should not have a pointless and pathetic term like this in the first place.

I don't follow you. They have a disallowed game. All casinos have disallowed games for their bonuses. What exactly are you referring to?

[Macgyver]

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

In reference to Bryan's second to last post, you can see that Micki said the player has the deposit AND bonus in the account currently.

You want to rag on a casino, rag on the ones who would have just given the player back their deposit and that's it. At least this casino has given the player the opportunity to play accepted games and basically "start over."

[Vesuvio]

I don't follow you. They have a disallowed game. All casinos have disallowed games for their bonuses. What exactly are you referring to?

Most casinos don't mind if you play the disallowed games. It just doesn't count towards the wagering requirement.

Any terms that can result in the forfeiting of winnings when you make a mistake are going to result in a lot of recreational gamblers losing their money. Bonus hunters don't tend to make mistakes.

That's why I was so hard on Fortune Lounge and thought they should have been rogued when they were forfeiting the bonus and winnings if a player made any mistake in wagering (e.g. wagered too little). To their credit they changed to a system where at least the first time they'd restore your balance and let you keep playing.

[Simmo!]

Most casinos don't mind if you play the disallowed games. It just doesn't count towards the wagering requirement.

Hmm that's interesting. Not being a bonus user I didn't realise that. So I could get $200, build it to say $2k in Blackjack or a couple of big Red/Black bets in Roulette (IE: excluded games), then go use that $2k on slots to fulfill the wager requirement? Superb. I didn't realise casinos had missed that one

[Vesuvio]

Hmm that's interesting. Not being a bonus user I didn't realise that. So I could get $200, build it to say $2k in Blackjack as an excluded game, then go use that $2k on slots to fulfill the wager requirement? Superb

Yep, though you might find turning $200 into $2k a little tricky The mathematically inclined casinos also didn't miss the fact that trying to build up a big balance on excluded games means more money for the casino in house edge.

[Simmo!]

Yep, though you might find turning $200 into $2k a little tricky

The way I play Blackjack that's an understatement

Regards the issue at hand, I think Trident did the right thing returning deposit and bonus. Many lesser regarded casinos wouldn't have done that. At the end of the day, the terms were there, even if it was only just. And they couldn't have really done anything else as it would have set a precedent and potentially caused an even bigger furore. Kinda like the Bella Vegas case recently

[Vesuvio]

And they couldn't have really done anything else as it would have set a precedent and potentially caused an even bigger furore.

I don't see why they couldn't have realised (especially after he e-mailed) that this player was just a day late playing a game which no-one would choose to play if he wasn't going by the old t&cs. If they paid his cashout would it have set a precedent or caused a furore? Of course not. The terms give discretion so there's no precedent even if someone else happened to learn what happened. There would be nothing at all on the message boards. In hindsight even the casino might think the money would have been worth it to avoid the bad publicity - and might reconsider this term as it'll keep coming back to haunt them.

[elscrabinda]

I don't follow you. They have a disallowed game. All casinos have disallowed games for their bonuses. What exactly are you referring to?

This is what I have been saying all along. It is perfectly legitimate for casinos to state which games count towards wagering requirements and which do not. A reputable casino that wants to avoid disputes and keep customers happy however should not exclude these games entirely. Let players play what they want and if by a misreading of the terms they play the wrong game all they will have to do is complete the wagering requirement on eligible games. If someone was to play a $6000 WR on Deuces Wild it would on average cost them the full value of the bonus in house edge anyway! What advantage did the player gain??!!

The only purpose it serves is to give an opportunity to seize winnings and is asking for trouble. There is no justification for it as this game had a high house edge. The player did not gain an advantage playing it. A bonus abuser would have played only 3 card poker or similar anyway or would have picked a more generous VP game.