Giantvegas & Royaldice stiffed me for over $7000

[casperfix]

Scrollock, It was a stupid note of mine because I was mad(the black list quote). Of course the first thing to do is to try to solve things without the forums.

Just to let you know, I had been waiting more than a year (this no pay is from June last year) before I went to the forum.

By that time I sent 41 emails(Just finished to count) trying to solve this issue without forums.

It seems that the Casinomeister and other has other important issues of no pay without bonuses so I had no choice but to come with it AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR to the forums.

[scrollock]

Scrollock, It was a stupid note of mine because I was mad(the black list quote). Of course the first thing to do is to try to solve things without the forums.

Just to let you know, I had been waiting more than a year (this no pay is from June last year) before I went to the forum.

By that time I sent 41 emails(Just finished to count) trying to solve this issue without forums.

It seems that the Casinomeister and other has other important issues of no pay without bonuses so I had no choice but to come with it AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR to the forums.

casperfix, without reading the thread again, i agree that you deserve being paid and if you give bryan enough time (if hes not quick, he is effective), i think you should be paid, however the point i made earlier and i hope you adhere to it from now on, is wait to you are paid from one before playing the other. beleieve me if someone is a bad payer then if you have a cash from them, you will have more than 2 times the job getting paid

[Casinomeister]

Casperfix, from what I have from you and the casino shows me that your intent was to try and get over on them. In your original PAB you stated, You see I took a screen shot of all of the terms because I have had problems in the past with online casinos not honoring their terms - okay red flag for me. I have been handling complaints from players for years. Most legitimate complaints come from players who have had misunderstandings with the T&Cs, or there are communication problems between them and the casino, or some other ONE TIME problem. When players have had multiple problems, then there is a red flag to consider.

Believe it or not, most players never have problems. And when they do, it's usually because of the above mentioned. There is clearly no misunderstanding on your part - you admitingly took screenshots anticipating a problem.

So that's mistake number one.

Mistake number two - there's another player who did the exact thing you did - took screen shots, played three card poker and roulette. Odd isn't it - do you know one another? This player doesn't seem to know you. I find this hard to believe.

I played for the first time at giant vegas and git a bonus of 200 for 200 deposit. I checked the terms of the bonus and played tri card and roulette. Roulette was mentioned as a game which doesnt contribute thru the wagering but nothing more, it didnt say you cant play roulette not for the wagering. i completed the rollover in Poker Three or tri card as required.The casino refuse to pay claiming they sent an email after the first deposit was made, an automated email which said that roulette is not allowed to play. First I havent found any email stating that but even if yes there are terms in the website and right after you register you deposit and play and dont check your email.I have a screenshot of all pages of the terms and condition if needed

That sound familiar? Hmm, that's the other guy's complaint - not yours. But it's yours nearly word for word. And you deposited during the same time period.

Red flag number two.

And mistake number two - conspiring with other players to try and get over on a casino.

This is what you did:

Royal Dice

• The player deposited $200 on the 18th of June

• She was given a $200 Free Bonus + an additional $30 for utilizing an alternative form of payment = $230 Free Money

• This equates to 115% Bonus.

• She took the entire $430.00 and placed it on one outcome on the Roulette wheel

• She won $3,600.00

• She then immediately started to play Tens or Better Video Poker

• She did not play any other game and eventually ended up with a balance of $2,550.00 which incorporated our non redeemable bonus.

Giant Vegas

• The Player deposited $200 in Giant Vegas on the 18th of June

• She was given a $200 Free Bonus + an additional $30 for utilizing an alternative form of payment = $230 Free Money

• This equates to 115% Bonus.

• She took the entire $430.00 and placed it on one outcome on the Roulette wheel exactly as she did a few minutes earlier in Royal Dice

• She won $4,140.00

• She then immediately started to play Three Card Poker

• She did not play any other game and eventually ended up with a balance of $5,540.00 which incorporated our non redeemable bonus.

The casino had posted in their website "roulette did not count towards wagering requirements", and they emailed both you and your friend that if you were to play roulette, that you were to notify them ahead of time so they could REMOVE the bonus.

If you wish to play any of these excluded games, please contact support@giantvegas.com to have your bonus removed before playing these games (please include your Username in the email).

So what's the deal? The deal is that all indicators point at you trying to scam a casino in their eyes. Check out term from your screenshots #5:

The Casino reserves the right to review transaction records and logs from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If upon such review, it appears that the player is participating in strategies that the casino in its sole discretion deems to be abusive, the casino reserves the right to revoke the entitlement of such player to the promotion.”

I don't think they mean "abusive" black jack strategies but ways in which players use their bonus funds.

What you should have done is either a) NOT take a bonus and done the same play - bonuses are not obligatory. Personally, I rarely take them - and I've done good without them.

b) act like it was an honest mistake. Oops - didn't read the terms and conditions, could you please overlook this this one time. Oops - my server went down and I didn't receive your email. Oops, I temporarily lost my mind. Oops - that was roulette? You'd be surprised how often casinos forgive and forget - they want a loyal player base.

But when it is obvious to a casino that you are trying to get over on them - they'll invoke their "the casino reserves the right..." clause. If it's posted in their terms and conditions, then you've agreed to this statement.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this was an intentional attempt on your part to either find a loophole or start splitting hairs. So they have invoked their "F.U" clause.

Let me make myself perfectly clear to everyone. If you try to scam over a casino, you won't get paid. Most casinos have some version of an F.U clause. When they choose to invoke this, that's their decision. The question that many of you have is probably, did they casino have enough reasons to invoke this.

Those of the bonus whoring persuasion would probably argue "this is rogue behaviour - how dare the casino invoke this clause!" Others may feel this is an understandable way to protect one's business.

Me? The amount of time I spend on crap cases like this mind blowing. This is absolutely stupid. Makes me question whether or not I should consider PABs that deal with bonuses. I've spent nearly the entire morning on this when I should be spending time on the relaunch - or dealing with other more important player issues.

[thelawnet]

Casperfix, from what I have from you and the casino shows me that your intent was to try and get over on them. In your original PAB you stated, You see I took a screen shot of all of the terms because I have had problems in the past with online casinos not honoring their terms - okay red flag for me. I have been handling complaints from players for years. Most legitimate complaints come from players who have had misunderstandings with the T&Cs, or there are communication problems between them and the casino, or some other ONE TIME problem. When players have had multiple problems, then there is a red flag to consider.

Believe it or not, most players never have problems. And when they do, it's usually because of the above mentioned. There is clearly no misunderstanding on your part - you admitingly took screenshots anticipating a problem.

So that's mistake number one.

Mistake number two - there's another player who did the exact thing you did - took screen shots, played three card poker and roulette. Odd isn't it - do you know one another? This player doesn't seem to know you. I find this hard to believe.



That sound familiar? Hmm, that's the other guy's complaint - not yours. But it's yours nearly word for word. And you deposited during the same time period.

Red flag number two.

And mistake number two - conspiring with other players to try and get over on a casino.

This is what you did:

Royal Dice

• The player deposited $200 on the 18th of June

• She was given a $200 Free Bonus + an additional $30 for utilizing an alternative form of payment = $230 Free Money

• This equates to 115% Bonus.

• She took the entire $430.00 and placed it on one outcome on the Roulette wheel

• She won $3,600.00

• She then immediately started to play Tens or Better Video Poker

• She did not play any other game and eventually ended up with a balance of $2,550.00 which incorporated our non redeemable bonus.

Giant Vegas

• The Player deposited $200 in Giant Vegas on the 18th of June

• She was given a $200 Free Bonus + an additional $30 for utilizing an alternative form of payment = $230 Free Money

• This equates to 115% Bonus.

• She took the entire $430.00 and placed it on one outcome on the Roulette wheel exactly as she did a few minutes earlier in Royal Dice

• She won $4,140.00

• She then immediately started to play Three Card Poker

• She did not play any other game and eventually ended up with a balance of $5,540.00 which incorporated our non redeemable bonus.

The casino had posted in their website "roulette did not count towards wagering requirements", and they emailed both you and your friend that if you were to play roulette, that you were to notify them ahead of time so they could REMOVE the bonus.

If you wish to play any of these excluded games, please contact support@giantvegas.com to have your bonus removed before playing these games (please include your Username in the email).

So what's the deal? The deal is that all indicators point at you trying to scam a casino in their eyes. Check out term from your screenshots #5:

The Casino reserves the right to review transaction records and logs from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If upon such review, it appears that the player is participating in strategies that the casino in its sole discretion deems to be abusive, the casino reserves the right to revoke the entitlement of such player to the promotion.”

I don't think they mean "abusive" black jack strategies but ways in which players use their bonus funds.

What you should have done is either a) NOT take a bonus and done the same play - bonuses are not obligatory. Personally, I rarely take them - and I've done good without them.

b) act like it was an honest mistake. Oops - didn't read the terms and conditions, could you please overlook this this one time. Oops - my server went down and I didn't receive your email. Oops, I temporarily lost my mind. Oops - that was roulette? You'd be surprised how often casinos forgive and forget - they want a loyal player base.

But when it is obvious to a casino that you are trying to get over on them - they'll invoke their "the casino reserves the right..." clause. If it's posted in their terms and conditions, then you've agreed to this statement.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this was an intentional attempt on your part to either find a loophole or start splitting hairs. So they have invoked their "F.U" clause.

Let me make myself perfectly clear to everyone. If you try to scam over a casino, you won't get paid. Most casinos have some version of an F.U clause. When they choose to invoke this, that's their decision. The question that many of you have is probably, did they casino have enough reasons to invoke this.

Those of the bonus whoring persuasion would probably argue "this is rogue behaviour - how dare the casino invoke this clause!" Others may feel this is an understandable way to protect one's business.

Me? The amount of time I spend on crap cases like this mind blowing. This is absolutely stupid. Makes me question whether or not I should consider PABs that deal with bonuses. I've spent nearly the entire morning on this when I should be spending time on the relaunch - or dealing with other more important player issues.

I think you're a little harsh. Both players playing roulette and 3 card poker is similar but not proof of anything. One is in arixona and one in germany. I'm sure you've seen plenty of complaints here about players playing roulette for bonuses in the past. I'm sure you don't believe they are all the same guy.

And 3 card poker I guess was the game with the lowest edge that wasn't banned. So obviously they both would play that game.

Is there anything to connect them, other than their very standard wagering pattern?

As for taking screenshots, he's clearly a sharp operator, but that doesn't give the casino the right not to pay him does it? If I was going to do a strtegy that would win me several thousand I'd do it too. Just being a bit sharp is no crime - if it were, it would justify players charging back from the likes of cirrus, just because they are a bit sharp as well.

And do you really think its acceptable to post some of your terms on your website and some in an email the player might not read till several days later, but still rely on the email?

[Vesuvio]

Bryan, I understand this sort of thing's a pain in the neck for you, but you've gone way over the top. On the basic issue: if the casino did send out the e-mail saying you couldn't play excluded games then they've probably got themselves covered, though it's shoddy behaviour to have different terms on the website. As others have said, if a casino says a game won't count towards the wr that means just that - it won't count, but you're free to play it if you like.

There is clearly no misunderstanding on your part - you admitingly took screenshots anticipating a problem.

So that's mistake number one.

Come off it - everyone knows casinos, especially the dodgier variety, will wriggle out of paying players if they possibly can. Taking screenshots should be recommended to anyone playing at on-line casinos, as they're vital and you can't rely on the good faith of the casino. It's not like, for instance, opening a bank account in the UK, where you can be sure it's regulated and you'll have some options if it turns out a company's trying to scam you.

The Casino reserves the right to review transaction records and logs from time to time, for any reason whatsoever. If upon such review, it appears that the player is participating in strategies that the casino in its sole discretion deems to be abusive, the casino reserves the right to revoke the entitlement of such player to the promotion.”

I don't think they mean "abusive" black jack strategies but ways in which players use their bonus funds.

I can't believe you're actually quoting the catch-all terms. Players are free to use any possible strategy they can think of to wager at a casino. That's what they do. They try to win... call that "trying to get [one] over on the casino" if you like, but it doesn't turn it into fraud.

What is fraud is to accept all of a player's losing bets and then refuse to pay a winning one - which is the casino's neat scam here. All this is assuming the player doesn't have multiple accounts, isn't committing credit-card fraud, and so on - obviously in those cases the casino has some justification, but note it's absurd to say that just because players are using the same strategy they've got multiple accounts. Players share strategies for playing at casinos. Where's the big deal? (And most of the strategies shared cost them money, though you don't see the casinos complaining )

What you should have done is either a) NOT take a bonus and done the same play - bonuses are not obligatory. Personally, I rarely take them - and I've done good without them.

Again, let's not go into the realms of the absurd. If you play without bonuses at on-line casinos you'll lose the house edge over time. It's a mug's game. Do it for entertainment, if that works for you, but not to win.

b) act like it was an honest mistake. Oops - didn't read the terms and conditions, could you please overlook this this one time. Oops - my server went down and I didn't receive your email. Oops, I temporarily lost my mind. Oops - that was roulette? You'd be surprised how often casinos forgive and forget - they want a loyal player base.

I understand your approach on a tactical level, but there shouldn't be any need for players to act like idiots to get their money. Either they broke the terms and conditions (barring the rogue catch-all term) or they didn't.

But when it is obvious to a casino that you are trying to get over on them - they'll invoke their "the casino reserves the right..." clause. If it's posted in their terms and conditions, then you've agreed to this statement.

Again, casinos are there to get one over on players - players want to get one over on casinos. Most people don't have the aim of politely handing all their money over to the casino.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this was an intentional attempt on your part to either find a loophole or start splitting hairs. So they have invoked their "F.U" clause.

If there's a loophole change the terms, don't steal the funds of anyone who exploits it.

[henryVIII]

Have I got this right?

The player has deviously enacted an effectively fraudulent and abusive strategy here.

He has quite brazenly :

1. Met every term and condition the casino has set
2. He has then very callously not played any games that were banned and only stuck to the games that the casino allowed to be played
3. Perhaps as a final insult to the casino, he has had the nerve to actually end up winning even thought the casino has had a house edge on every game played.

I have to say the "follow up" email is irrelevent. It was sent after he signed up and how many times do we have casinos saying "we sent you an email but maybe your firewall blocked it" as a response to queries. Now this casino assumes all emails are not only recieved but that players stop playing and check their inbox periodically to see if the terms have changed!!! Unbelievable.

I would also say that, in my opinion, when playing in a manner which maximises your probability of ending up winning equates to abuse then I cant agree.

Also, that the "F.U." clause is undefendable. We are not dealing in games with infinite probabilities/outcomes ... the casino must shape its clauses and terms so that they do reflect reality. That is what will and wont happen ... we are not dealing with any infinites here. Its a controlled environment. Its not hard or too much to expect is it?

This discretionary leniency for casinos to override the terms is not on. You would think they are some friendly neighbourhood casino trying to earn a crust. They arent, they are a dollars and cents business.

Isnt a "good" player one who never loses sight of probabilities, etc? I know casinos dont ... they base their businesses on such a fact (not on "having fun" or "getting lucky" but cold hard maths).

That said, i do understand Bryan's own annoyance. If the guy (girl?) had been up front and said this is what i did and this is why there is probably a problem it would have saved everyone a lot of time here.

If I was him, id be pissed off at the "Im just a regular guy and the casino has gone crazy on me" bleating.

So, while I think the casino have cocked up their terms and conditions (why else send emails after the event) as they dont cover such blind spots, I personally couldnt care less if the player is paid or not.

Case closed. (for me anyway)

[Casinomeister]

Well it seems you all are shooting the messenger. I'm explaining to you the realities of dealing with online casinos. And please don't treat me or the other members here like idiots - you know damn well these players tried to get over on the casino - it's clear as day. And I never said it was the same person - I pointed out that there are two (mind you only two) complaints that are identical.

Yoo hoo! Wake up and smell the coffee - nearly all casinos have F.U. clauses. If you don't like it - well, might as well take up tiddly winks. there aren't many casinos that don't have these clauses. When they choose to implement them, that's strictly subjective. We - as in the gaming community - hope they do this with discretion.

Lasseters Online reserves the right to review a player's transaction record. If, upon review, it appears that a player is participating in strategies, which Lasseters Online deem to be abusive, we reserve the right to revoke any such bonus payments to the player and unsubscribe them from the mailing list.
http://www.lasseters.com.au/promotio...s.jsp#tremtues

Non-compliance with the above terms and conditions shall be deemed to be promotion abuse and as such will give iNetBet Management the right at its sole discretion to take the following action against such abusers. All balances/cashouts shall be considered null and void. Abusing player accounts may be terminated with immediate effect. Players found to be abusing promotions may be precluded from receiving further promotional offers at the casino.
http://www.inetbet.com/aboutus/rules...ions.asp#terms

All winnings on any account/s opened will be null and void and all withdrawals will be cancelled where play has been deemed abusive.
http://www.kingneptunescasino.com/

That's three top casinos that I'm sure most of us agree are in the major leagues when it comes with dealing with their players. How often have they implemented this policy? I don't know, but it's there - and it's something everyone should be aware of.

Lesson learned: don't try pulling stunts like these two players and expect not to be nailed.

And let me place it in big bold letters so you understand what I am saying: I'm explaining why the casino chose to revoke the players' winnings. I'm explaining to you that this casino decided - based on the evidence at hand - that they were invoking the F.U. clause. I have explained what the red flags were and what raised suspicion. I thought I was doing some of you a favor.

Some of you need to be more diligent in reading my posts.

And don't bitch at me because you don't like it. Go bitch to the casino, their affiliates, their software provider, their licensing agency, ISP, whatever. I'm just explaining to you what happened.

[Vesuvio]

Well it seems you all are shooting the messenger. I'm explaining to you the realities of dealing with online casinos. And please don't treat me or the other members here like idiots - you know damn well these players tried to get over on the casino - it's clear as day. And I never said it was the same person - I pointed out that there are two (mind you only two) complaints that are identical.

No-one's being treated like an idiot. I just don't see what's wrong with a player trying to use a bonus to their advantage (that's their selling point, isn't it?). You've said it yourself before - casinos have to accept that players will do everything they can, within the specific terms and conditions, to win. If you offer a bonus that tempts the player to deposit and win, and the player deposits and wins, you have to pay him. After that you can ban him from future play or burn his effigy on a pyre at Halloween. If you deny winnings it's rogue behaviour.

Yoo hoo! Wake up and smell the coffee - nearly all casinos have F.U. clauses. If you don't like it - well, might as well take up tiddly winks. there aren't many casinos that don't have these clauses. When they choose to implement them, that's strictly subjective. We - as in the gaming community - hope they do this with discretion.

What's disappointing here is that you're back-tracking on your previous position, Bryan. Yes, these clauses exist, but casinos that implement them when all the other terms have been met must be considered rogue. It's not acceptable, but that's about all we can do as a community. If you're not going to uphold that principle, and eCOGRA certainly don't look as though they're going to, then it should simply be stated loud and clear: NO-ONE SHOULD EVER PLAY AT AN ON-LINE CASINO. Any political moves to ban or make life difficult for on-line casinos should be supported, as players have absolutely no assurance of a fair deal.

And let me place it in big bold letters so you understand what I am saying: I'm explaining why the casino chose to revoke the players' winnings. I'm explaining to you that this casino decided - based on the evidence at hand - that they were invoking the F.U. clause. I have explained what the red flags were and what raised suspicion. I thought I was doing some of you a favor.

Now this is treating us all as idiots. Everyone knows why the casino thinks they might get away with wriggling out of payment. The job of the player community should be to let the casinos realise there are at least some consequences in terms of publicity if they go ahead and do that.

[henryVIII]

Well it seems you all are shooting the messenger. I'm explaining to you the realities of dealing with online casinos. And please don't treat me or the other members here like idiots - you know damn well these players tried to get over on the casino - it's clear as day. And I never said it was the same person - I pointed out that there are two (mind you only two) complaints that are identical.

Yoo hoo! Wake up and smell the coffee - nearly all casinos have F.U. clauses. If you don't like it - well, might as well take up tiddly winks. there aren't many casinos that don't have these clauses. When they choose to implement them, that's strictly subjective. We - as in the gaming community - hope they do this with discretion.

Lasseters Online reserves the right to review a player's transaction record. If, upon review, it appears that a player is participating in strategies, which Lasseters Online deem to be abusive, we reserve the right to revoke any such bonus payments to the player and unsubscribe them from the mailing list.
Terms and Conditions

Non-compliance with the above terms and conditions shall be deemed to be promotion abuse and as such will give iNetBet Management the right at its sole discretion to take the following action against such abusers. All balances/cashouts shall be considered null and void. Abusing player accounts may be terminated with immediate effect. Players found to be abusing promotions may be precluded from receiving further promotional offers at the casino.
iNetBet internet casino, blackjack, slot machine, roulette, video poker, baccarat, craps, keno

All winnings on any account/s opened will be null and void and all withdrawals will be cancelled where play has been deemed abusive.
Virtual Casino & Virtual Gambling - King Neptunes Casino

That's three top casinos that I'm sure most of us agree are in the major leagues when it comes with dealing with their players. How often have they implemented this policy? I don't know, but it's there - and it's something everyone should be aware of.

Lesson learned: don't try pulling stunts like these two players and expect not to be nailed.

And let me place it in big bold letters so you understand what I am saying: I'm explaining why the casino chose to revoke the players' winnings. I'm explaining to you that this casino decided - based on the evidence at hand - that they were invoking the F.U. clause. I have explained what the red flags were and what raised suspicion. I thought I was doing some of you a favor.

Some of you need to be more diligent in reading my posts.

And don't bitch at me because you don't like it. Go bitch to the casino, their affiliates, their software provider, their licensing agency, ISP, whatever. I'm just explaining to you what happened.

OK, Im confused.

Youre first post was all over the player nailing him as an abuser, etc. Quite right the casino stiffed you, etc.

Now you seem to say 'of course the casino is wrong but what can you do?, life sucks, etc.'

Which is it?

Also, despite this, you say you are just the messenger but (as the now locked English Harbour thread showed) its a fine line between 'being the messenger' and 'being the apologist'. By which i mean either you think what you aptly call the 'F.U.' clause is wrong or its right. Its the tone of "its wrong, but fair enough they use it" bit which seems to contradict.

Do you think such a clause is right or wrong?

[Casinomeister]

OK, Im confused.

Youre first post was all over the player nailing him as an abuser, etc. Quite right the casino stiffed you, etc.

Now you seem to say 'of course the casino is wrong but what can you do?, life sucks, etc.'

Which is it?

Also, despite this, you say you are just the messenger but (as the now locked English Harbour thread showed) its a fine line between 'being the messenger' and 'being the apologist'.

Get a grip - I locked the EH thread because there wasn't anything new to add about that incident. If someone had posted a glowing drippy-ass report on how fantastic EH software is, I would have locked it as well. It's called forum management. To bump up threads is not condoned in most forums - including this one. Why? because it makes these threads too huge to manage. If I want to refer someone to the thread, they'll never read the entire thing.

Please be my guest and start a new thread. Simple as that.

And lest we forget, EH has been in Casinomeister's rogue section for some time now. An Apologists? I don't think so.

And pertaining to this issue, I wasn't all over this player. You'd know it if I was.

No-one's being treated like an idiot. I just don't see what's wrong with a player trying to use a bonus to their advantage (that's their selling point, isn't it?). You've said it yourself before - casinos have to accept that players will do everything they can, within the specific terms and conditions, to win. If you offer a bonus that tempts the player to deposit and win, and the player deposits and wins, you have to pay him. After that you can ban him from future play or burn his effigy on a pyre at Halloween. If you deny winnings it's rogue behaviour.

Yes, but as it was made clear - roulette was not a game that counted towards the wagering requirements. And this is where one runs into a problem. We can debate until the cows come home whether or not the casino should pay a player because the language didn't explicitly state that playing roulette voids winnings. This is not a case where a player has played a game that was not mentioned before as being disallowed (retroactive), or someone who has been pounding the casino's bonuses, and the casino locked them out. As far as I can tell, the player knowingly played a game that was disallowed/not counting/forbidden/whatever. The player knew this and tried to take a chance at splitting hairs on how the terms were written. The player also was sent an email stating that if you were to play these games, to notify the casino. Does the email count? That's debatable.

What's disappointing here is that you're back-tracking on your previous position, Bryan. Yes, these clauses exist, but casinos that implement them when all the other terms have been met must be considered rogue. It's not acceptable, but that's about all we can do as a community. If you're not going to uphold that principle, and eCOGRA certainly don't look as though they're going to, then it should simply be stated loud and clear: NO-ONE SHOULD EVER PLAY AT AN ON-LINE CASINO. Any political moves to ban or make life difficult for on-line casinos should be supported, as players have absolutely no assurance of a fair deal.

You're not being fair here. I'm not backtracking on any position; I'm telling you why this happened. For me to take a hard line stance on this, this situation needs to be much more concrete.

Now this is treating us all as idiots. Everyone knows why the casino thinks they might get away with wriggling out of payment. The job of the player community should be to let the casinos realise there are at least some consequences in terms of publicity if they go ahead and do that.

Sorry, I disagree that I'm treating some of you like idiots. But there are two sides of every coin, and some of you are failing to see this. I'm (again) trying to be as fair as possible concerning this issue. But no one has really convinced me why these players should be paid.

So convince me...