Caution: XXL Club Casino Bonus Terms

[XXLClubCasino]

Banned! Just added.

I really don't like this kind of statements.

Also i have proof, how your sister Casino: La Isla Bonita Casino,
have a some problems in past and recently.

Hi sodax

Sorry if I've offended you with this statement this only reflect what happen in our casino and should not be taken personally. We by default welcome every players from every countries (not USA unfortunately) and any ethnic.

With regard to a "sister" casino "La Isla Bonita" we have absolutely nothing in common, we are neither sister, nor brother, nor do we share anything except having the same software provider.

Thank you for reviewing your statement.

[vinylweatherman]

Hi sodax

Sorry if I've offended you with this statement this only reflect what happen in our casino and should not be taken personally. We by default welcome every players from every countries (not USA unfortunately) and any ethnic.

With regard to a "sister" casino "La Isla Bonita" we have absolutely nothing in common, we are neither sister, nor brother, nor do we share anything except having the same software provider.

Thank you for reviewing your statement.

Yes, sometimes we players make mistakes too. We identify relationships between casinos based on similarities of location, promotional and management style, software provider, website design, and similarities in the more unusual provisions of T & C. Admittedly, innocent casinos get tangled up in this broad brush approach, but us players are prepared to make an exception where a casino from a "roguish category" is able to provide evidence that they do not fit the mould.
You must understand that the real rogues have no interest in us players knowing which casinos of theirs are related to each other as they would like us to deposit and lose in as many "skins" as possible.

It is with regret that I find there is no "tongue in cheek" smiley

[Sodax77]

Hi sodax

Sorry if I've offended you with this statement this only reflect what happen in our casino and should not be taken personally. We by default welcome every players from every countries (not USA unfortunately) and any ethnic.

With regard to a "sister" casino "La Isla Bonita" we have absolutely nothing in common, we are neither sister, nor brother, nor do we share anything except having the same software provider.

Thank you for reviewing your statement.

Hi

Thanks for your reply.
I have read this thread a while. And it wasn't my personal opinion.
But after all, you are "Casino Representative" and then it is your Casino statement. Right?

Referring "sister casino" - There is a few examples, where player from La Isla Bonita Casino will get an answer from XXL Club Casino.
(» email sent to La isla Bonita Casino - an answer came from XXL Club Casino)

I do not care, are you connected in any form to La Isla Bonita.

But your statement: "...Mostly players organized in groups from the same countries (greece, finland, turkey, netherlands, france)..."
Can you pleae proof that, please.
Eg. referring my country: Finland.

At least, You should write correctly. (with capital letters)
Finland, Turkey, etc

[spearmaster]

The mention of a "Playtech blacklist" is interesting, and illegal under data protection laws where a player given no opportunity to correct the information. While this can happen with credit reference agencies, data protection laws give the person the right to see their entire file, and to demand wrong information is corrected either by the offending company or by them adding their own disclaimer to their file. I doubt the Playtech blacklist adheres to these rules, and for much of the time the industry has tried to insult our intelligence by claiming these "rumours" of industry wide blacklists are without foundation. It seems possible to get on these blacklists not for fraud, but just for winning too much by playing the "wrong games", usually card games.

As much as I hate blacklists, I think I'm going to have to disagree here. First of all, you are not issued credit. Secondly, you are not guaranteed any right to play at one or any number of casinos. And thirdly, this data does not have any affect on your credit record, your bank records, does not get attached to any official information, is not displayed publicly, etc.

Like it or not, a casino may choose to bar a player at any time for any reason, without any explanation, PROVIDED that the casino settles any debts which are due, assuming that no fraudulent (note - abusive is NOT necessarily fraudulent) play took place.

A bar may prevent you from entering their premises on the basis that you broke a chair and didn't pay for it - and the owner might tell his friends who would then possibly not admit you into their establishments.

Forget the fact that it wasn't you who broke the chair really - you happened to sit on a chair which was already heavily damaged and it broke completely when you sat down. The owner may or may not have known that fact - but you are still on his premises and he has the right to bar entry, and that's that.

Sucks, I agree. But trying to draw a connection between the issuing of credit (and thus being subject to data protection laws) and being barred at an establishment really doesn't make sense.

[vinylweatherman]

As much as I hate blacklists, I think I'm going to have to disagree here. First of all, you are not issued credit. Secondly, you are not guaranteed any right to play at one or any number of casinos. And thirdly, this data does not have any affect on your credit record, your bank records, does not get attached to any official information, is not displayed publicly, etc.

Like it or not, a casino may choose to bar a player at any time for any reason, without any explanation, PROVIDED that the casino settles any debts which are due, assuming that no fraudulent (note - abusive is NOT necessarily fraudulent) play took place.

A bar may prevent you from entering their premises on the basis that you broke a chair and didn't pay for it - and the owner might tell his friends who would then possibly not admit you into their establishments.

Forget the fact that it wasn't you who broke the chair really - you happened to sit on a chair which was already heavily damaged and it broke completely when you sat down. The owner may or may not have known that fact - but you are still on his premises and he has the right to bar entry, and that's that.

Sucks, I agree. But trying to draw a connection between the issuing of credit (and thus being subject to data protection laws) and being barred at an establishment really doesn't make sense.

While not an exact comparison, the same holds true. A bank does not have to give anyone who asks credit, however, if they see you on a blacklist, this may have a negative influence on their decision. In this respect, being wrongly placed on a blacklist affects your life chances and choices. It is important that blacklists are accurate, and further that they are open to independent scrutiny. The data protection laws do not give anyone the right to remove information, but it gives them the right to ensure that it is correct.
With the Playtech blacklist, it is (or was) secret, and no one can even find out if they are on it. In the above example, of a customer falsely accused of breaking a chair, exclusion from that premises is not so relevant as the blackening of the customers name such that no other local premises is available to them. This can, and sometimes does, lead to civil court action where the wronged person can sue for compensation.
My particular objection to the casino industry online is that often it is only when the customer makes their first withdrawal that they are told they are ineligible for this and that, and are on some kind of list. the casino happliy takes their custom while they are losing. This is false pretences, as such a customer could never win, but could lose an amount limited only by willingness to deposit.
A blacklist would be far less of a problem if it was held by an independent agency, such that players had a means of redress if their name wrongly appears on it.
Casinos also appear on blacklists, but these are open to the casino to dispute their entry. Many casinos on Bryan's blacklist have been given the opportunity to petition for removal, and sometimes this has been done. The original rep reply seemed to indicate that while a blacklisted player could ask the individual casino for entry, they could never dispute their appearance on the Playtech blacklist.
Players should not be subject to far higher standards than casinos. Perhaps if players can never get their name off a blacklist, perhaps there is a case for never allowing a casino redemption for perceived past sins - indeed, there are cases where forgivness seems to have been misplaced.
If casinos really were being seriously affected by fraud, they would fundamentally change the way they operate, rather than have these purges - and then simply making the same mistakes all over again. Current behaviour makes me think the only thing that interests them is making money as quickly as possible, providing entertaining promotions is a necessary evil toward the end goal, and they would rather we just play and lose, and never bother calling CS to ask questions about the rules for this or that offer.

I have seen too many TV expose documentaries about big business to believe that all the loyalty schemes they run are for OUR benefit, they are all about making it easier for businesses to manipulate us into spending more.
I have had casinos stop sending me offers, not because I didn't play regularly, or abused their generosity, but because I had a couple of lucky hits, and they just decided that winning back the money through further enticements was not worth the bother. There are a couple that offer me the same, despite my luck, or lack of it - and these continue to get my custom.

[GrandMaster]

A bar may prevent you from entering their premises on the basis that you broke a chair and didn't pay for it - and the owner might tell his friends who would then possibly not admit you into their establishments.

This could be libel.

[XXLClubCasino]

Hi

Thanks for your reply.
I have read this thread a while. And it wasn't my personal opinion.
But after all, you are "Casino Representative" and then it is your Casino statement. Right?

Referring "sister casino" - There is a few examples, where player from La Isla Bonita Casino will get an answer from XXL Club Casino.
(» email sent to La isla Bonita Casino - an answer came from XXL Club Casino)
I do not care, are you connected in any form to La Isla Bonita.

This is now very interesting do you have any example of this? As you might know or not we do subcontract part of our service to a third company mostly answering basic customer support through emails. Our chat operators are our own support team and casino managers available 24/24. We are NOT in any case way connected to them.

If possible please send me this email so I can clarify this very unpleasant and surprising incident, so I can investigate it, because I would care ;-)

But your statement: "...Mostly players organized in groups from the same countries (greece, finland, turkey, netherlands, france)..."
Can you pleae proof that, please.
Eg. referring my country: Finland.

How can I possibly prove this to you? Our weekly/monthly and now yearly stat shows that bonus abuser mostly are resident from the mentioned countries.

Also it is from those countries that we payout the most. Maybe you will tell me that Finish (capital F) players are more talented or more lucky than others, this is surely also true but the bonus abusing tricks are with high majority mastered by those countries.

At least, You should write correctly. (with capital letters)
Finland, Turkey, etc

I gave my best now

[Sodax77]

This is now very interesting do you have any example of this? As you might know or not we do subcontract part of our service to a third company mostly answering basic customer support through emails. Our chat operators are our own support team and casino managers available 24/24. We are NOT in any case way connected to them.

If possible please send me this email so I can clarify this very unpleasant and surprising incident, so I can investigate it, because I would care ;-)



How can I possibly prove this to you? Our weekly/monthly and now yearly stat shows that bonus abuser mostly are resident from the mentioned countries.

Also it is from those countries that we payout the most. Maybe you will tell me that Finish (capital F) players are more talented or more lucky than others, this is surely also true but the bonus abusing tricks are with high majority mastered by those countries.



I gave my best now

Oh, you are the hero!

"Finish"?! ...or did you mean: Finnish?!

5 star indeed

[spearmaster]

This could be libel.

If it were a factual statement, it could not be libel. But that is beside the point - while what vwm says is true about the fact that one's presence on a list could have an adverse effect, it remains true that the establishments are private.

Another simple example - one could be prohibited from playing further because they live in a particular country - sucks, but again still within the casinos' rights.

Ultimately, there isn't a whole lot that can be done - except of course if a casino makes a decision to add further comments to an entry on the list, and possibly permits entry despite presence on the list. A player would nevertheless still not be guaranteed entry.

[vinylweatherman]

If it were a factual statement, it could not be libel. But that is beside the point - while what vwm says is true about the fact that one's presence on a list could have an adverse effect, it remains true that the establishments are private.

Another simple example - one could be prohibited from playing further because they live in a particular country - sucks, but again still within the casinos' rights.

Ultimately, there isn't a whole lot that can be done - except of course if a casino makes a decision to add further comments to an entry on the list, and possibly permits entry despite presence on the list. A player would nevertheless still not be guaranteed entry.

While all establishments are private, the addition of a name to a publically available blacklist goes beyond the rights of an individual establishment to deny entry to a customer they don't like. They are circulating what could be a personal opinion or prejudice to other unrelated establishments, which would prejudice those other establishments against admitting the customer even though the customer is behaving properly within the new establishment. Unless the addition on the list is factual, it comes under civil libel laws. There does not have to be a libellous comment, the mere fact of being on a BLACKlist implies wrongdoing.
Online casinos are pretty much the only establishments that now bar players based on generalisations about their country (and by implication in some cases, race). B & M establisments are no longer allowed to make such broad bans, but must do so on an individual basis, such that each individual has a fair chance of being considered for admission on merit.

I would ask the casino whether they suffered more "bonus abuse" from US players in the past, than the rest of the world put together. I am sure that if they analysed US players by county, they could come up with a few that have had an "unusual number of connected players", but they ignore this and treat the US as a whole. Since the US once accounted for 90% of the business, it seems odd that they are subdividing the remaining 10% into small sample sizes, doing the stats on these small samples and concluding that they represent entire nations. It is as bad as us taking 10 spins on a slot, and getting only 10% return - then concluding that this proves that particular slot returns 10%, and is not a fair game when compared with our favourite that has returned 95% over thousands of spins.