KING NEPTUNES Is Withholding My Winnings!

[elscrabinda]

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

No. Allowing the player to continue playing out the wagering requirement on allowed games would have set the precedent that they are able to use their terms and conditions fairly and sensibly and not as a tool by which to confiscate winnings arbitraly.

As has been mentioned, allowing him to do this would NOT have been in breach of their terms. Their terms state that winnings may be seized at their discretion. This is very similar to the standard playtech term "we reserve the right to screw you over". "reserve the right" does not mean "we are obliged to do it". We do not expect reputable Playtechs to use this term to seize winnings. Neither should we expect reputable MG casinos to use their equivalent.

[Simmo!]

No. Allowing the player to continue playing out the wagering requirement on allowed games would have set the precedent that they are able to use their terms and conditions fairly and sensibly and not as a tool by which to confiscate winnings arbitraly.

For a regular player, a "known" entity, Yes I agree.

Look at it this way: you say to me you'll give me $100 but I can't spend it on a gun to shoot you with. So I go off to buy a crossbow, but while I'm down the shops, you think "sh*t, supposing he buys a crossbow", and you text me an exclusion notice. Only I don't get the text 'cos that hooker Pinababy fixed me up with nicked my cellphone last night. Bitch. So when I turn up at your house, holding my shiny new crossbow and a small pointy stick, do you:

a) Hold your hands up and go "fair's fair, stick it on me fat boy"
b) Call the cops and have me arrested
c) Take the crossbow from me and give me another $100 to make up for it?



If I was a mate, you'd probably give me the $100 - you might even jokingly ask me to stick it on you. If you didn't know me, then apart from being stupid to give me $100 for a crossbow, you'll probably call the cops. Right?

PS. before you libel me, I'd just like to point out that I'm not a violent person and have no intention of doing that by the way...it's just British humour, for better or worse

[Macgyver]

Look at it this way: you say to me you'll give me $100 but I can't spend it on a gun to shoot you with. So I go off to buy a crossbow, but while I'm down the shops, you think "sh*t, supposing he buys a crossbow", and you text me an exclusion notice. Only I don't get the text 'cos that hooker Pinababy fixed me up with nicked my cellphone last night. Bitch.

First of all, I can't wait until Pina sees that you called her a "bitch." Boy, oh boy, more furor than the English Harbour incident ... (runs and hides)

And are people really saying that if you have a bankroll of £400 (the OP's original deposit and bonus) compared to a bankroll of £8,194 (the OP's winnings of £7,794 which was taken added to that deposit and bonus), the player doesn't have a better chance of walking away with more money?

Let's use good ol' blackjack (assuming it's an allowed game) as an example:

1. The player starts with £400. According to the casino's website current T&C, the player would have to £6000 before withdrawing. Using a standard .05% HE for blackjack (this is an example, not based on Neptune's actual HE), the player would statistically lose £3, leaving them with a profit of £197.

2. The player starts with £8,194 and then has to complete that £6000 of wagering. Given the house edge of blackjack, the player still statistically loses £3.

This gives a profit of £7,791!!!!

Heck, take the Wizard of Odds' highest HE on a slot machine of 15%. The player statistically loses £900. That still gives the player a profit of £6,694 if he plays an allowed slot machine after racking up that initial profit on disallowed games.

If you don't like the casino's rules, don't play there. But if you do play there, it's ultimately your responsibility to know them and follow them.

[Vesuvio]

This thread's taken a surreal turn of late. Simmo, nice analogy... well, sort of... except: I quite like the sublime paranoia of "I'll give you $100 but don't buy a gun to kill me", but it's a little lacking in motivation, don't you think? You forgot you're only giving away $100 on the condition that the other guy gives you $100 and you'll keep it all unless he "kills" you (in fact you'll kill him, I suppose... it's like the Wild West).

Trying to keep with the analogy: every single player's out to "kill" you (even the nice ones with bad aim), if not with the cross bow it'll be with the meat cleaver, or failing that the spanner you also didn't exclude.

I don't know quite what it all boils down to if you take out the weird analogy: casinos should only treat players decently if they know they'll make a profit from them?

And are people really saying that if you have a bankroll of £400 (the OP's original deposit and bonus) compared to a bankroll of £8,194 (the OP's winnings of £7,794 which was taken added to that deposit and bonus), the player doesn't have a better chance of walking away with more money?

Hmmm, no, no-one said anything of the sort Of course the player loses a fortune if the casino keeps to its guns. For what it's worth, you lose £30 at BJ, not £3, but that's neither here nor there.

[Slotster!]

Slotster's final word:

1) The guy, by the letter of the law, should've adhered to the terms and conditions
2) Kudos to the casino rep for responding, I wanted to see a more thorough bit of detail really, with rock solid proof why they did the right thing, but it's their perogative I guess
3) I would not, and will not play at this casino. This is a personal preference for not choosing places that, in my humble opinion, have these 'trip you up' clauses - I appreciate fully this is a personal opinion and open to debate.
5) What the hell happened to 4)?
6) I feel for the guy, and were it my outfit, assuming he didn't 'hammer' the disallowed game - I'd probably fall somewhere in the middle
7) Simmo is clearly pissed


Take care of yourselves... and each other.

[vinylweatherman]

I can understand the issue with a single big bet on BJ or Roulette using all funds and then meeting WR slowly on a slot, but why VP, it is as high variance as a slot, and is not effective for reliably building up a balance with which to meet WR. The method with big bets on BJ and Roulette was intended as a ploy for sticky bonuses, and it is only effective if said player hits ALL casinos in a group with the same method. They cannot lose mathematically in the long run. VP does not give this sort of advantage. The only way to do this with VP is to play for a Royal Flush and then meet WR on allowed games. I could understand why Trident would not like ME playing VP with the bonus (see winner screenshots).
The likelihood of a player of getting the RF is slim, and they would have to play many casinos for this. This method would work on ALL the VP, not just the excluded ones, so I am surprised they don't simply go down the "slots only" route rather than listing excluded games that appear to have little logic for the beginner. A bonus hunter should not be tripped up by Trident on this sort of issue, they are more careful, and will have triple checked the terms, got the relevant tables from the Wizard, and planned carefully (and will probably have a degree in maths!). Incidentally, the high house edge only applies to the single hand Deuces Wild. The multi-hand versions have a house edge similar to Aces and Faces (actually slightly greater), but with higher variance due to the Deuces Royal and 4 Deuces loading at the expense of the lower hands.
A bonus hunter would have actually switched to 50 hand Deuces Wild, set the coin to 1c, and set Autoplay for a couple of hours to do the $6000. This would work on all the other VP games, and would still beat using slots to play out the WR. I expect there is more to this story than has been revealed (has this player done this with the other Trident casinos before terms changed), or Trident have been unduly harsh on a recreational player.
At least the rep has clarified that the terms DO contain a validity span (1 to 31 March), so I would have expected the player to have at least checked the bonus was available for April, but on the other hand I have noticed that these validity spans are often meaningless at other casinos, as the following month sees the dates change and nothing else.

[sirius]

As has been mentioned by a few people, there is actually no reason to void winnings for play on excluded games. The wagering requirements would not be met with these games but the extra play on these games would be advantageous to the casino because of the house edge. I would like to know what caused them to include this term. Initially only Playtech casinos voided winnings from play on excluded games.

The only mistaken reason for casino doing this is if they see that the player has a good chance to build a large bankroll with the game. Some players treat bonuses with high WR as a sticky bonus which can't be withdrawn as it will on average be lost by the house edge - so players are advised to aim for a high win to maximise the return. WizofOdds and others have explained that you should aim for a high win with sticky bonuses so this method is no secret but they can do that just as easily with the games that count towards the wagering requirement such as slots so it really makes no sense for the casino to void winnings for play on the excluded games. It actually serves no purpose to the casino and prevents new players from legitimately trying all the games.

[Pinababy69]

Bitch.

You say that like it's a bad thing... You were the one didn't wanna cough up the extra $100 for the higher priced model, lol.

Really though Simmo..lmfaoooo. What an analogy, ha ha ha ha. Stick it on me fat boy?

Mac, you can come outta hiding now, it's safe.......I think.

[Pinababy69]

If you don't like the casino's rules, don't play there. But if you do play there, it's ultimately your responsibility to know them and follow them.

Well said Mac, and bottom line, that's the way it is. I feel bad for the player, because I don't think she was trying to pull a fast one, but I guess it's an expensive lesson for her.

I am glad to see that the casino gave her back her deposit PLUS bonus. Maybe she can be lucky once again. Best of luck Piecar.

[jonevegas]

I know where you are coming from. You should get paid! The only reason they put terms in there is so they don’t have to pay you. You are asking for help at the wrong place if your asking the guy that runs this place because he has casinos out there that are screwing people as well. He may say and make it look like he is trying to help but trust me he is not on any of us players side he is one of them in Descries. I have casinos over the Internet that owe me over $200,000.00. The best Casinos to play at are the ones that say they will pay the same day. Spanish Luck Casino pays just go talk to Tex and tell him COS**** sent you he will take good care of you. Black Dog Casino is another that will pay you the same day. The Casinos that have to hold your withdraws for days, do not trust them. I am thinking about opening up a web site to help people and advise them of what to look for. I have lost over a 1/2 million over the Internet and have a lot of experience. I don’t plan on owning any of them and you dam sure cant trust someone that is playing both sides. I mean look at the picture of the meister, that tells everything.

Blackdog, Spanishluck what a fucking cockhead you are, and BTW I think you blow dead goats as well!!. Hey Brian I am not going to get suspended am I?