Accredited Casino "VIP Casinos"; Resolved

[gaming_mouse]

Hi,

I'm not sure if this belongs in a pitchabitch or here. Please let me know if I should submit this to Bryan, or if he will see it here. But I am having a nightmare experience with VIP Casinos that I thought a should share, especially since I have never had a problem with an accredited casino before.

The terms on their website are very clear about which games are excluded from playthru calculations. Each excluded game is listed separately in a list on this page:

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

The last rep I talked to suggested that they may update that page, so in case they do here is:

Link Removed (invalid URL)

Note that while the game "Bonus Deuces Wild" is listed as an excluded game, the game "Deuces Wild" (definitely a different game) is not. Since I planned to play this game, I confirmed this fact with a CS rep. Here is here confirmation that "Deuces Wild" is indeed allowed:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The problems began when I went back to the chat to check on my wagering requirements. A new chat representative informed me that "Deuces Wild" did not count. She was about to dismiss my protests to the contrary altogether, until I mentioned casinomeister as a referral, and my screenshot of my previous chat session.

After a long delay, she spoke with a supervisor and they agreed that my previous wagering on Deuces Wild would count, but that no further wagering would. She claimed that it is stated on the website that "Deuces Wild" does not count, and ignored me when I pointed out that this was simply false.

I was shocked that an accredited casino would so blatantly disregard not only their own T&C, but also the promise of one of their own reps.

I'd appreciate any advice.

Thanks,
Jonah

Here is the transcript of my Chat with the 2nd rep:

One of our Member Services staff will be with you in a moment
You are now chatting with Charlene
Charlene: Thanks for contacting us at VIP - how may I help you today?
TheIoanna: Hello Charlene
TheIoanna: I have been playing alot recently, but I have no idea how much I have wagered. Could you tell me?
Charlene: Hello, Jonah.
Charlene: Please hold on a moment, I will check your account.
Charlene: Thank you for your patience.
Charlene: Jonah, you have wagered $2,212.00 and still have to wager $9,788.00 to meet the rollover requirement.
Charlene: Is there anything else I can help you with?
TheIoanna: No. That is impossible.
TheIoanna: I have wagered at least $5000 on Deuces Wild, which is an allowed game.
Charlene: I am sorry Jonah, Deuces Wild is also one of the excluded games.
Charlene: The games excluded from playthrough are: Baccarat
Charlene: Bingo
Charlene: BlackJack
Charlene: Craps
Charlene: MultiHand Video Poker
Charlene: Poker
Charlene: Roulette
Charlene: Video Poker
Charlene: War
TheIoanna: No, Charlene. It is not. I was told so by one of your reps over chat and have a screenshot of that. You should also check your own website. It is not listed there.
Charlene: This game actually is excluded, do you remember the name of the clerk that informed you that it wasn't?
TheIoanna: Hold on I will look at the screenshot.
TheIoanna: Idris
TheIoanna: You should also look here:
TheIoanna: Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Charlene: If you look at our website it is also stated that this game is excluded. Please visit Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) .
TheIoanna: You will notice that Deuces wild does not count
TheIoanna: No Charlene. It is not listed there.
TheIoanna: Only Bonus Deuces Wild is listed there.
Charlene: It is the 5th game mentioned.
TheIoanna: No. That is "Bonus Dueces Wild"
TheIoanna: A different game from "Deuces Wild"
Charlene: Neither one of them qualify, "Bonus Dueces Wild" nor "Deuces Wild".
TheIoanna: One moment I will post the screenshot of the chat with Iris.
TheIoanna: I was referred here by the casinomeister website.
TheIoanna: Here is the screenshot:
TheIoanna:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Charlene: Please hold one moment.
TheIoanna: Are you still there?
Charlene: Your patience is appreciated. I will be with you in a moment.
Charlene: Thank you for your patience.
Charlene: Jonah, I spoke to my supervisor and she decided to since it is our mistake, she will grant you the rollover of the $12.000 including the deuces wild game up to now. Please be advised for future reference that the "Dueces Wild" nor any other "MultiHand Video Poker" do not count towards the rollover requirement.
Charlene: So any games played after will not qualify anymore as you are now informed correctly that it does not qualify for the rollover. Once you reach the 12.000 we will adjust his account so you can take the money out.
Charlene: Is there anything else I can help you with?
TheIoanna: Charlene, since I was told these were the terms... I should be able to continue to play that game to meet my rollover.
TheIoanna: Also, how much have I wagered so far?
Charlene: I am sorry but that is not possible, we will grant you the funds you have played so far but that is all.
Charlene: If you include this game it is $8,244.90.
TheIoanna: Ok, well I will be reporting this decision to the casinomeister, as well as the discrepancy between your posted terms on your website and what you are telling me.
TheIoanna: I played here because you are an accredited casino
TheIoanna: This is outrageous.
Charlene: It clearly states on our website that this game is excluded. However since this was our mistake we will still grant you the funds you played, but you are informed now and therefore we will not be able to continue giving you the rollover on this game.

 

[kiolka]

I think they are being very reasonable. They have counted the wagering for you up to this point. Yes you were told something in error, but I think they are making up for it.

 

[gaming_mouse]

I think they are being very reasonable. They have counted the wagering for you up to this point. Yes you were told something in error, but I think they are making up for it.

The key point is that what I was told is in agreement with the posted terms on their website. I don't think it's fair for them to claim that posted terms are in error. In fact, one of the CM's rules for Accredited Casinos is that they must stick to their T&C. That is my main problem with their response.

Thanks for your reply,
Jonah

 

[soflat]

Bonus Deuces Wild and Deuces Wild are two different games. They should count it.

I guess they cover themselves by stating they can change the terms any time they like. As I understand it Mansion did that too.

The problem with such a term is that it becomes a bait and switch whereby they could make the bonus impossible to clear at any point after you deposit.

 

[bpb]

I don't understand why they're telling you that all video poker games are excluded. Their list of excluded games on their website doesn't indicate that. Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

I'm confused ...

 

[gaming_mouse]

I'm confused ...

Welcome to the club

 

[hitobito2005]

I was planning on playing certain VP games that are not excluded too, but in the email they sent me after I was credited a bonus, it said all VP games are excluded. I played 3 Card Poker instead to be safe. I think their site is misleading, they should just say all VP games are excluded if that is the case.

 

[VMSCasinos]

Hi,

This is John Olsen from VIPcasinos. In my opinion the rules are very clear to the player. If you click on the following links you will see that Double Deuces Wild is clearly excluded from the bonus.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

If you feel differently please let me know how we can make it more clear to the player.

John

 

[soflat]

Hi,

This is John Olsen from VIPcasinos. In my opinion the rules are very clear to the player. If you click on the following links you will see that Double Deuces Wild is clearly excluded from the bonus.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

If you feel differently please let me know how we can make it more clear to the player.

John

What about Deuces Wild?

 

[bpb]

Hi,

This is John Olsen from VIPcasinos. In my opinion the rules are very clear to the player. If you click on the following links you will see that Double Deuces Wild is clearly excluded from the bonus.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

If you feel differently please let me know how we can make it more clear to the player.

John

Double Deuces Wild isn't excluded from the bonus.
Double Deuces Wild doesn't exist on the RTG platform.
I'm pretty sure Double Deuces Wild doesn't exist in any casino anywhere.

If you're talking about Double Bonus Deuces Wild, well, that doesn't exist in RTG's library of games either.

The OP is talking about Deuces Wild video poker, and I still don't see it on the excluded list at the links you've posted. Bonus Deuces Wild is clearly excluded, but Deuces Wild isn't.

 

[Zoozie]

Hi,

This is John Olsen from VIPcasinos. In my opinion the rules are very clear to the player. If you click on the following links you will see that Double Deuces Wild is clearly excluded from the bonus.

John

'Double Dueces Wild'? That games does not exist! (and it is also not on the list, so I do not see this 'clearly')
But I think you mean 'Bonus Dueces Wild'. And I agree it is clear that this game is excluded in the T&C.

However gaming_mouse was playing 'Dueces Wild' which is not the same
as 'Bonus Dueces Wild', and 'Dueces Wild' is NOT on the excluded game list.

Maybe you would be easier if you write all video-poker games are excluded so you do not forget any of them since that seems to be the case here.

Here is the list of excluded games from the web-page:
Aces and Eights, All American Poker, Baccarat, Black Jack, Bonus Deuces Wild, Bonus Poker, Bonus Poker Deluxe, Caribbean 21, Craps, Double Jackpot Poker, Double Jackpot Poker, Double Double Jackpot Poker, Double Double Bonus Poker, European Roulette, Face Up 21, Jacks or Better, Loose Deuces, Match Play 21, Mystery Bonus Poker, Pick’em Poker, Pontoon, Roulette, Sevens Wild, Super 21 and War.

It would be easier if casinos wrote what games was allowed instead of the excluded list.


Zoozie

 

[lydia]

Here is the list of excluded games from the web-page:
Aces and Eights, All American Poker, Baccarat, Black Jack, Bonus Deuces Wild, Bonus Poker, Bonus Poker Deluxe, Caribbean 21, Craps, Double Jackpot Poker, Double Jackpot Poker, Double Double Jackpot Poker, Double Double Bonus Poker, European Roulette, Face Up 21, Jacks or Better, Loose Deuces, Match Play 21, Mystery Bonus Poker, Pickem Poker, Pontoon, Roulette, Sevens Wild, Super 21 and War.

It would be easier if casinos wrote what games was allowed instead of the excluded list.


Zoozie

LOL!

 

[aodat2]

Since you asked for an opinion, here's mine.

From now on, all casinos (including VIP Casinos) should actually start their T&C like this:

If you take this Bonus, you will only be allowed to play :
1. ....
2. ....
3. ....

Until you have completed the Wagering Requirements, any other games played will be considered as a breach in the T&C and thus your winning will be null and void. If you lose, TOUGH LUCK!!!

That would be a lot better to the players.

 

[gaming_mouse]

Hi,

This is John Olsen from VIPcasinos. In my opinion the rules are very clear to the player. If you click on the following links you will see that Double Deuces Wild is clearly excluded from the bonus.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

If you feel differently please let me know how we can make it more clear to the player.

John

John,

I don't want to be rude, but if you actually took the time to read this thread you would have seen that, as bpb pointed out, the game I was playing is called "Deuces Wild" -- not "Double Deuces Wild" or "Bonus Deuces Wild" -- and that this game is NOT on your excluded list.

I am surprised that a Casino manager registered as a representative on this site would make such an error publicly. Now that it has been pointed out, perhaps you might want to reconsider the decision that has been made in my case.

Thanks,
Jonah

 

[tennis_balls]

at this rate their casino will go the way of their poker room.

they boast about being a member of the first poker network yet in in it's current state the network is a ghost-town.

 

[ballysdb]

No offense to the rep from VIP...If he doesn't even know what game this thread is talking about, well that pretty much sums up what posters have been complaining about as of late. A rep in chat will tell you one thing (if they even understand what you're talking about), a rep on the phone says something different, the T&C's are different from what they both said! I for one am fed up! When I first read this thread I was going to say "I think the rep was being reasonable" but that is bull****! We have come to expect so little from customer service. I beleive we all need to demand more!...Rant over

 

[chuchu59]

This casino manager doesnt even know what he's talking about. He should have said that in his opinion Deuces Wild is an excluded game but since this was unclear the player should still be able to fulfill the WRs thru playing Deuces Wild. On second thoughts maybe excluding Bonus Deuces Wild meant that playing Deuces Wild was an excluded game if you took a bonus.

Come, on John, a mistake has been made. No need to cover it up through an excuse which is likely to embarrass your casino even further. Change the wording in the website from Bonus Deuces Wild to Deuces Wild and if deposits had been made prior to the change treat Deuces Wild as a non-excluded game for the sake of meeting the WRs. I hope we dont see a repeat of the King Neptune's fiasco.

Ah, maybe we can rename the thread to 'VIP Casinos' not understanding their own terms. Good grief!

 

[soflat]

I think the rep just made a mistake. No need to beat him up over it (although it is understable with all the stuff going on with other casinos lately). Give him a chance to admit it and confirm Deuces Wild is allowed.

 

[big_mac]

I don't know what you are complaining about, Deuces Wild is obviously on the list


Aces and Eights, All American Poker, Baccarat, Black Jack, Bonus Deuces Wild, Bonus Poker, Bonus Poker Deluxe, Caribbean 21, Craps, Deuces Wild, Double Jackpot Poker, Double Jackpot Poker, Double Double Jackpot Poker, Double Double Bonus Poker, European Roulette, Face Up 21, Jacks or Better, Loose Deuces, Match Play 21, Mystery Bonus Poker, Pickem Poker, Pontoon, Roulette, Sevens Wild, Super 21 and War

 

[paul1]

Hi,

I'm not sure if this belongs in a pitchabitch or here. Please let me know if I should submit this to Bryan, or if he will see it here. But I am having a nightmare experience with VIP Casinos that I thought a should share, especially since I have never had a problem with an accredited casino before.

You know what bud, this is a chicken sh-t beef if you ask me. I joined this group some time ago, and it was clear to me that video poker was NOT intended to be allowed for the bonus. If you looked at their terms as it was, and still chose to play DW for a bonus, I don't think you deserve any sympathy.

This is a very reputable group. I know they are associated with Planet Poker and that was my first experience at gambling online. I know of their reputation. Like I said, extremely reputable.

I've noticed several new clients lately implementing the RTG software. I think they all had some learning to do, and made a few mistakes that left them vulnerable. Clearly this group did not intend for video poker to be played for bonuses. Perhaps they should have just said in plain English "no video poker". But your playing deuces wild there for a bonus is just as dumb as some people playing roulette for bonuses. Why leave yourself open and invite trouble?

 

[paul1]

at this rate their casino will go the way of their poker room.

they boast about being a member of the first poker network yet in in it's current state the network is a ghost-town.

You're talking about the tables at Planet Poker. Clearly they dropped the ball at some point and it is difficult for me to understand what happened. Anyone can second guess.

But they had the world by the ying yangs at one point. I remember the days when Party only had 300 players, Paradise had more, and Planet was in a good position to be the industry leader.

It could probably be a good debate as to what people think was their mistake/mistakes. But anyway, that's history now.

One thing though, you can't debate that this group had integrity. Maybe a case of nice guys finishing last.

 

[paul1]

Contrast this to the case where some Microgaming casinos exclude Jacks-or-better or Jacks-or-better-type games, making no mention of Deuces Wild. That's a different situation. In this case you've got a RTG software that offers a gazillion different video poker games, and if they left one out but excluded all the others, CLEARLY their intent is to exclude video poker.

 

[gaming_mouse]

I don't know what you are complaining about, Deuces Wild is obviously on the list


Aces and Eights, All American Poker, Baccarat, Black Jack, Bonus Deuces Wild, Bonus Poker, Bonus Poker Deluxe, Caribbean 21, Craps, Deuces Wild, Double Jackpot Poker, Double Jackpot Poker, Double Double Jackpot Poker, Double Double Bonus Poker, European Roulette, Face Up 21, Jacks or Better, Loose Deuces, Match Play 21, Mystery Bonus Poker, Pickem Poker, Pontoon, Roulette, Sevens Wild, Super 21 and War

The list was changed today. Do you think everyone responding to the thread thus far just happened to miss it? In the original post, I linked to Google's cache of their terms. If you click on that link, you will see what the terms looked like yesterday and on back.

I posted the cache because a CS rep told me they were going to clarify the terms, as I also mentioned in the OP.

 

[gaming_mouse]

You know what bud, this is a chicken sh-t beef if you ask me. I joined this group some time ago, and it was clear to me that video poker was NOT intended to be allowed for the bonus. If you looked at their terms as it was, and still chose to play DW for a bonus, I don't think you deserve any sympathy.

Did you read my entire post? How is it clear the video poker is excluded? Each game is listed separately, and "Deuces Wild" is not listed. I verified that Deuces Wild was allowed, and got a screenshot for a customer service rep. How is it chicksh*t of me to demand that the casino stick to their own terms?

You say it was clear to you that VP was not allowed? Why? Do you have any reasoning to support that conclusion? If video poker was not allowed, why wouldn't the excluded games state, "No form of video poker is allowed."

This is a clear cut case of a casino going back on its own terms.

 

[truevogue]

You should get the terms u signed up under, I c your point. I am beginning to think a lot of people here own casinos.

 

[chuchu59]

Contrast this to the case where some Microgaming casinos exclude Jacks-or-better or Jacks-or-better-type games, making no mention of Deuces Wild. That's a different situation. In this case you've got a RTG software that offers a gazillion different video poker games, and if they left one out but excluded all the others, CLEARLY their intent is to exclude video poker.

Players are always advised to read the Terms and Conditions when taking out a bonus. In this case, the player takes out a bonus and understands that Deuces Wild is not among the excluded games for meeting the WRs. Now you say that the intention was to exclude all video poker games. I dont think we should go and guess the casino's intentions. If its written in the Ts and Cs, the player should comply. Otherwise, the casino has made an omission and it is only right that this is not reckoned as an excluded game.

I was thinking that if a casino has 10 VP games and lists 9 of them as excluded games, wouldnt it be their INTENTION to single out the 10th as being not excluded? It can always be argued both ways.

 

[gaming_mouse]

I was thinking that if a casino has 10 VP games and lists 9 of them as excluded games, wouldnt it be their INTENTION to single out the 10th as being not excluded? .

That was exactly how I interpreted it. Since I thought it was possible they might have made an error of omission, I confirmed it with CS. Once they confirmed the game was allowed, all doubt was removed.

And in any case, not listing the game is the casino's error. They should take responsibility for it, no matter what their intention was.

 

[Linus]

Welcome to the world of casino-logic, gaming_mouse.

What's important to remember, is that although casinos reserve the right to confiscate any amount of money from you - the player - for violating any one of their terms and conditions - no matter how seemingly meaningless or insignificant - it's too much to ask casino employees to understand the terms and conditions themselves.

No doubt more representatives of the industry will be along to remind you of that, presently.

 

[bpb]

I was thinking that if a casino has 10 VP games and lists 9 of them as excluded games, wouldnt it be their INTENTION to single out the 10th as being not excluded? It can always be argued both ways.

In this case, VIP had several video poker games not listed as excluded. Deuces Wild wasn't, and Joker poker still isn't excluded.

If they wanted to exclude video poker, why not just say that. There is a clear video poker tab in the RTG interface. It is very easy to say that all video poker games are excluded, and it is very clear what games they are referring to. By listing 3/4 of the available video poker games, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the other 1/4 are unrestricted.

 

[bpb]

Clearly this group did not intend for video poker to be played for bonuses. Perhaps they should have just said in plain English "no video poker". But your playing deuces wild there for a bonus is just as dumb as some people playing roulette for bonuses. Why leave yourself open and invite trouble?

After reading their list of excluded games, I drew the conclusion that clearly SOME video poker games were alright. If they had wanted to exclude all video poker games, they would have just said so. But by only listing 3/4 of the games (this is clearly not a case where they mistakenly omitted 1 out of 20 games, they omitted several variations), I don't see your logic.

 

[Zoozie]

I have seen several examples where just one or a few video poker games are allowed and it was intended this way. So I do not agree that the player
should have realized it was a mistake.

The most common example is MG sign-up bonuses where only single line Dueces Wild is allowed. A few MG casinos (Fortune Lounge etc.) has this as in their sign up-bonus half a year ago. The reason is that this game has payout at 96%.

But I have seen several other examples, and also others where Dueces Wild was one of the few allowed video-poker games.

According to their T&C Dueces Wild was NOT excluded. And if they meant all video poker games was excluded I would expect them to write that instead of a long list. So it was not an obvious mistake.

If it was a mistake - pay the player (peanuts) and change the T&C to what you mean (allready happened I can see).

What boggles me most is that the case came this far. The casino make a minor mistake in the T&C and tries to scam 1 player for a few $ winnings, breaking the most sacred bond between the player and the casino - the T&C - made by the casino themself. And now the world knows about it.


I have been in a similar situation at Roxy casino due to special bonuses and conflicting T&C. Roxy agreed it was not clear and ruled to my favor. That is why I still play there.

Zoozie

 

[paul1]

Hey y'know what, if the terms say you can play roulette after all WR are met, I'm STILL not going to do it. Because I've seen how sticky things can get in these situations.

Do you think the OP might have had even a tiny hunch that he had found a "loophole"? If I was him, I would not have played DW unless I was absolutely sure it was ok.

My hunch is the OP shot an angle. Either way, I'm a betting man. And I bet this casino makes things right.

Hey believe me, I like video poker. I wish we could play video poker there for a bonus. Because I would. But they don't, so I won't. Btw, I think they have a pretty fair comp program, as far as online casinos go anyway. Happy hour on Fridays, double points. Sure, there are better deals to be found. But this is a decent outfit. Their sports book and race book are rated A+.

That's my 2-cents.

 

[paul1]

I was thinking that if a casino has 10 VP games and lists 9 of them as excluded games, wouldnt it be their INTENTION to single out the 10th as being not excluded? It can always be argued both ways.

Weigh the two possibilities. It's either like you just said, or someone made a mistake. Go ahead and argue it both ways, but I say it's at least reasonable to think someone writing the terms made an omission. In fact, in this case, I say it was reasonable to think that it was more likely that there was an omission.

I still say I bet they do right by this player. This is definitely one of the better casinos in cyber space.

 

[bb1webs]

Hi all,

well I think VIP really drops the ball here.

Its quite obvious the player having seen that the game they wanted was NOT listed in the DO NOT play list; and even having the savvy to contact CS to make certain there is no mistake, then given the okay to play by CS: then the clever idea to totally protect themself by getting a screenshot of what the CS agent had said ...

says to me that this is the state that OG has reached, where a savvy player not only has to make certain the terms are read ... and written correctly to the point of contacting CS for confirmation ... but then on top of that getting positive proof the CS said what they said ... and then after all that: getting shot down the way it went is ... disturbing to say the least.

Geez! What's next? apparently they're suppose to be able to anticipate what the casino may change the rules to?

What really gets me most about this is the player did everything right to the point of practically getting things written in stone that it was okay to play ... and then the rep coming in here and showing just what you come to expect from dealing with CS ... and not just here but everywhere (seemingly) where people in positions of power show such little regard as what has happened here.

That rep came in and breezed thru the thread, and then did a poor job of his homework even after it had been pointed out ... enough times that anybody who read this thread with even the half interest that I had ... (because i don't know anything about VIP) could tell the problem is simple.

player wanted deuces wild
checked T&Cs, it didn't list it as a no-play
as backup, contacted CS and got an "its okay to play"
smart enough to get screenshot
then after going back to CS to check wagering requirements is told now that deuces wild is not okay.

well there's problem 1. - player made deposit understanding they could play a game they wanted. The casino screwed up and now expects the player to be the one to pay for it.

What any quality business, in any niche would do in this case is to honor the customer's original understanding because that is the rules they put their money out for:

the rest of this is just a sad slide down a steep hill and I'm sorry to have seen the pile up at the bottom.

VIP: if you're all that you're suppose to be; get your .. selves back in here and accept responsibility for your own mistakes and stop expecting players to pay for them.

 

[henryVIII]

Hi all,

well I think VIP really drops the ball here.

Its quite obvious the player having seen that the game they wanted was NOT listed in the DO NOT play list; and even having the savvy to contact CS to make certain there is no mistake, then given the okay to play by CS: then the clever idea to totally protect themself by getting a screenshot of what the CS agent had said ...

says to me that this is the state that OG has reached, where a savvy player not only has to make certain the terms are read ... and written correctly to the point of contacting CS for confirmation ... but then on top of that getting positive proof the CS said what they said ... and then after all that: getting shot down the way it went is ... disturbing to say the least.

Geez! What's next? apparently they're suppose to be able to anticipate what the casino may change the rules to?

What really gets me most about this is the player did everything right to the point of practically getting things written in stone that it was okay to play ... and then the rep coming in here and showing just what you come to expect from dealing with CS ... and not just here but everywhere (seemingly) where people in positions of power show such little regard as what has happened here.

That rep came in and breezed thru the thread, and then did a poor job of his homework even after it had been pointed out ... enough times that anybody who read this thread with even the half interest that I had ... (because i don't know anything about VIP) could tell the problem is simple.

player wanted deuces wild
checked T&Cs, it didn't list it as a no-play
as backup, contacted CS and got an "its okay to play"
smart enough to get screenshot
then after going back to CS to check wagering requirements is told now that deuces wild is not okay.

well there's problem 1. - player made deposit understanding they could play a game they wanted. The casino screwed up and now expects the player to be the one to pay for it.

What any quality business, in any niche would do in this case is to honor the customer's original understanding because that is the rules they put their money out for:

the rest of this is just a sad slide down a steep hill and I'm sorry to have seen the pile up at the bottom.

VIP: if you're all that you're suppose to be; get your .. selves back in here and accept responsibility for your own mistakes and stop expecting players to pay for them.

Excellently put.

VIP's behaviour is just bizarre. How could they ever justify it? Good job the pleyer protected himself against VIP trying this kind of thing.

 

[LinkMeistress]

I also think that BB1webs said it well.

I personally like VIP Casinos. I enjoy my play there, I have had quite a few conflicting chat sessions, but things have always been resolved.

The thing that was most disturbing to me is the reply given by a manager/representative. IMO, the manager/ representative is the overseer who has to weigh all facts - kinda like a judge. Make a decision and act upon it accordingly. I don't think that happened here.

All I can say with certainty - at least on my end is that as far as I know about their bonuses..... you can ONLY play the bonus in the RTG platform, from there, there are more restrictions. You cannot play a bonus on any of the instant play games. Not even the slots! That's about the most consistent thing that my live chat sessions have revealed.

But like I said, I still enjoy my play there, I've always been able to get things resolved and most times, I play there with no bonus. So I don't really worry too much about the WR and restricted games.

Best of luck!

LM

 

[gaming_mouse]

Thank you to everyone who took the time read my post, weight all the facts, and respond.

I now have a practical question. The casino manager registered on this site has already seen the thread, responded to it breezily, and then ducked out after his misreading of the terms was pointed out. Now a number of respected posters have noticed this as well, and think it is clear that VIP Casinos is in the wrong here.

What is my practical recourse at this point? Should I contact Bryan and ask him to look at the thread, or will this just happen? Will Bryan be able to do anything if he does look at thread and if he agrees that VIP Casinos should take responsibility for their error?

In a nutshell, what can I realistically expect at this point? I figured that since VIP Casinos is an accredited casino here that Bryan would be able to put some pressure on them to do the right thing....

Please let me know.

Thanks,
Jonah

 

[LinkMeistress]

What is my practical recourse at this point? Should I contact Bryan and ask him to look at the thread, or will this just happen? Will Bryan be able to do anything if he does look at thread and if he agrees that VIP Casinos should take responsibility for their error?

In a nutshell, what can I realistically expect at this point? I figured that since VIP Casinos is an accredited casino here that Bryan would be able to put some pressure on them to do the right thing....

Personally, I would just wait a little. I know that you've already been waiting, but the post is still quite active. It seems to have stirred some interest so just give it a little time.

I don't think that anyone could even give you any hints about what to expect from this point on except the casino representative(s) - but that's just my opinion. I am interested to see the outcome of this post and hope that they do resolve it satisfactorily.

Best of luck!

LM

 

[soflat]

I thought the manager just made a mistake as Deuces Wild was clearly not prohibited by any stretch of the imagination.

But as his only response in the last 24 hours has been to change the T&Cs on their site, I have concluded it was NOT just a mistake, but rather a bait and switch.

Even though their T&Cs allow for a bait and switch, that is not what we expect from Accredited casinos.

I think you should ask Bryan to officially weigh in on this one.

 

[Linus]

Jonah, they've already credited you with the wagers you've already made, right?

So the question is whether you can fulfill the rest of the WR playing the game you signed up to play in the first place.

In principle the answer ought to be "yes."

But if it were me, I'd want to get shut of the place as quickly as possible. And it's not like you can take this case to court, or something.

 

[gaming_mouse]

Jonah, they've already credited you with the wagers you've already made, right?

So the question is whether you can fulfill the rest of the WR playing the game you signed up to play in the first place.

In principle the answer ought to be "yes."

But if it were me, I'd want to get shut of the place as quickly as possible. And it's not like you can take this case to court, or something.

Linus,

Yes, that is all correct. And they told me that I could finish out the remaining $4000 in wagering on the other allowed games, just not any form of VP.

But I actually think at this point it might be best to have some public awareness of the case here before I do anything. I have screenshots of their promise to let my DW wagers until now count, but I've already seen that they are not above going back on their word.

Since they are an accredited casino, and since that must help their business, I think my best option is to get CM involved, so that if they try to cheat me still further they will be risking more than they will gain.

It's ridiculous, IMO, that they did not just tell me I could finish out me wagering on DW. It would be giving me like an additional $40 in EV. Their fighting me on this, aside from being unfair, also strikes me as pretty bad business.

 

[bb1webs]

Hi again,

well I know its hurt them with me. I have been thinking about listing them because of all the good things I've heard and now with their response, and more so lack of coming back in to make this right; will certainly not gain them any favors.

I am constantly amazed at how casinos will run a bonus offer and then seemingly turn around and treat players in this manner when they do everything right and God forbid: beat the system.

Even more concerning to me; is the numbers that are involved.

Honestly, if you guys can't afford to out and out comp a player the lousy ... well whatever it was, ... it sure isn't an amount that would impress me as this being a casino which has the resources to pay large jackpot wins if they're willing to piss-off a player over the amount of a bonus.

I have said this many times before and the only thing not still relevant is the amount it costs me to get a real depositing player ... (that amount I'm certain has climbed considerably) but back when I first did the math the cost was $250.

Now consider this VIP. It cost somebody, probably Brian, somewhere in that neighborhood (or its certainly worth that amount if not more) to get this player into your casino and depositing real money.

Now I'd like to say here that "in one felled swoop" but that actually isn't the case in this instant. Here, it has taken several incompetent instances followed up by a confirmation by your rep to show he stands behind the casino's incompetence to run this player off.

Further, by your rep's incompetent understanding of this matter, he has alienated many more than just this one player because guys .... you are SO wrong here a blind man could see the injustice ... and yet I still don't see anybody here to step up to the plate and do what needs to be done.

All this: over a lousy ... what? forty bucks? well whatever the amount, its a small, small price to pay to keep one's integrity and reputation in good standing.

....

what should be done at this point is somebody ought to be coming back in here with their hat in their hand trying to .... here's a thought. Don't do the very minimum to make this right. Show some darn class and really comp the player something to give them reason, and the rest of the readers ... a reason to want to believe your casino is not just willing to do the minimum ... but that it is outstanding.

When will OG learn that a little common sense and a decent comp will win the entire crowd over where as such a small offer of "well you can keep what you've gotten away with so far ..." is just a sad, sad statement on the way the rest of us can expect to be treated at your casino.

 

[bb1webs]

Hi again,

to explain: the reason this is such a sore spot with me is that online casinos have no where near the operating costs that a B&M casino.

and I understand that you're operating on the %s, but so do the B&Ms and yet they can still afford to comp everything from hotel rooms and food, to shows etc.

They pay a monthly light bill that would likely turn a tight-azz's hair white.

All that money which went towards building the casino. the parking lots. Why I bet the cost of the cement alone ... just in the parking lots would be enough to bankrupt most online casinos.

The payroll has to be much more than that of an online casino.

I could go on and on.

Yet these casinos can manage to come up with decent comps. Especially when they are wrong. Where do you think this behavior was learned to be expected? From Vegas casinos. They know how to treat a player. (though to be fair; they ain't what they used to be either unless you're a high roller, but still head and shoulders about their online counterparts).

So it just isn't believable to me when I see an online casino act like the cost of a bonus is so seriously important that they have to come to the point we find ourselves now.

If you don't like bonus chasers. Don't make offers that will bring them in. Concentrate on treating your better players better with that money instead of using it as bait to bring in customers you obviously don't want in the first place.

 

[soflat]

Show some darn class and really comp the player something to give them reason, and the rest of the readers ... a reason to want to believe your casino is not just willing to do the minimum ... but that it is outstanding.

Yeah, now you're talkin'! There were actually people posting positive experiences about this outfit early in the thread. They could have stepped up to the plate right then and scored accolades all around (and probably a few of these high-rolling, slot-spinning, Casino Meister players too).

 

[rreevy]

I always thought that bonuses were awarded on the principle that the T&Cs applied to the bonus were the ones in force when the player claimed the bonus. Period. Allowing casinos to make even minor changes to the T&C after a bonus had been credited would set a dangerous precedent.

I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that players are supposed to infer that games are supposed to be excluded, when they aren't specifically mentioned. There often appears to be little logic to the games excluded. I remember an MG casino whose sign-up bonus allowed all forms of blackjack except Vegas Strip. Vegas Strip has the lowest house edge of the BJ games normally found in MG's download software, but it's hardly different from Atlantic City (0.361% compared with 0.365% I think).

The idea of counting this player's Deuces Wild wagering only up to the point where they checked how much had been wagered, as well as being unsatisfactory, is also silly imo. Suppose the player had already met the $12,000 WR when checking how much was wagered... then it would all count, yeah?

 

[The Dude]

Man, this is a hell of a lot of commotion for a bonus error. I'm just getting to this thread that has gone on for five pages, and what I can tell it has stemmed from the customer service rep making an error on understanding what games were exempt.

From Gaming_mouse's chat session, they admit the error - allow the already played game play, but tell Gaming_mouse that he needs to comply with not playing that game any further. Apparently, Gaming_mouse feels this is not fair.

After the casino rep posted his response, did anyone PM him back? Just wondering.

I'll look into this.

 

[Mousey]

.....

From Gaming_mouse's chat session, they admit the error - allow the already played game play, but tell Mousey that he needs to comply with not playing that game any further. Apparently, Gaming_mouse feels this is not fair.

.....

Too many mouses in our house? substitute Gaming_mouse for Mousey ...

 

[The Dude]

Too many mouses in our house? substitute Gaming_mouse for Mousey ...

Done.

 

[gaming_mouse]

Man, this is a hell of a lot of commotion for a bonus error. I'm just getting to this thread that has gone on for five pages, and what I can tell it has stemmed from the customer service rep making an error on understanding what games were exempt.

From Gaming_mouse's chat session, they admit the error - allow the already played game play, but tell Gaming_mouse that he needs to comply with not playing that game any further. Apparently, Gaming_mouse feels this is not fair.

After the casino rep posted his response, did anyone PM him back? Just wondering.

I'll look into this.

Hey Bryan,

I have not played at all since that chat session. I've been waiting to see what you think and what your response will be.

Please note that what I feel is unfair is that they are refusing to comply with their posted terms. It is not simply that a customer service rep gave me erroneous info to begin with. The info that original rep gave me, when she confirmed that DW was allowed, was in agreement with their posted terms. Also note that the terms have been changed since this thread started. You need to look at Google's cache of the terms to see the terms under which I signed up -- there is a link to that cache in my OP.

So anyway, the commotion is about their refusal to stick to posted terms.... not about a rep giving me false info. If that had been the case (that is, if DW had clearly been excluded on the website, but the rep had mistakenly told me that it was allowed) I think their solution would have been fair. However, that is not the case.

Anyway, please tell me what you think. I will do whatever you recommend.

Thanks,
Jonah

 

[The Dude]

Hey Bryan,

I have not played at all since that chat session. I've been waiting to see what you think and what your response will be.

Please note that what I feel is unfair is that they are refusing to comply with their posted terms. It is not simply that a customer service rep gave me erroneous info to begin with. The info that original rep gave me, when she confirmed that DW was allowed, was in agreement with their posted terms. Also note that the terms have been changed since this thread started. You need to look at Google's cache of the terms to see the terms under which I signed up -- there is a link to that cache in my OP.

So anyway, the commotion is about their refusal to stick to posted terms.... not about a rep giving me false info. If that had been the case (that is, if DW had clearly been excluded on the website, but the rep had mistakenly told me that it was allowed) I think their solution would have been fair. However, that is not the case.

Anyway, please tell me what you think. I will do whatever you recommend.

Thanks,
Jonah

If you want me to tell you what I think - here goes.

Actually, I think you handled this incorrectly. If it were me, and I found that the CSR had messed up by telling me that the wrong games were allowed. I would have played out the wagering requirements and chalked this up as a casino "eff - up" shit happens. THEN I would have contacted the manager and explained how I felt. They need to ensure that this would never never happen again, and then I would contact the portal master or someone like me and explain what had happened.

This method of problem solving benefits everyone:
1. The casino not only understands that they made a serious eff-up, they would understand that you are a sincere player who would be a valuable person to retain.
2. You would have probably gotten a freebie out of this since the casino realize they made a mistake.
3. The portal operator could keep tabs on this and make sure that the casino keeps in line.
4. you won't get someone fired over this

No one contacted the casino rep when this thread started. As a forum member, please take responsibility when starting threads that are critical about one's operation; make sure the person you're complaining about knows you're complaining. It becomes just a bunch of people complaining and staring at each other. Nothing is going to happen this way.

When the thread first saw life, I asked the rep to take a look at it. He was probably as busy as me, saw it, made a quick comment, and left. Yeah sure, this left a lot of room for improvement, but no one here bothered to PM him again and say "look, we need more answers."

If I'm not responding to a thread, it usually means I'm caught up with others or I'm dealing with something else. It's not a sign of disinterest - it's a sign that I'm busy with other stuff. Please keep this in mind and be a bit more proactive (I know some of you are, and I thank you for that).

Anyway, what should have been a one page thread has turned into this. I'll wait for the casino rep to get involved before I go further.