Mayan fortune don't pay..of course.

[alita55]

Hello there,

I signed up at Mayan fortune and took the free$10 they offer me to claim.
I made it up to $200 and made the playtrough.I was asked to make a $20 deposit to let me withdraw the $200 in my neteller account.So i did.Lost my deposit.Icashed out the $200,send my documents and they where accepted.It would be processed shortly.
Next day my account was locked because i was a bonus abuser.No explanation or something.
Well well well surprise surprise,another casino that tries everything to dont pay.
I deposit many times at Davincis gold,Paradise8,Cocoa,Pantasia.Never cashed out but no problems whatsoever there.Mayan Fortune was new to me so i signed up and took the free $10,i win $200,cashout and they locked my account.
Please,If you dont want that players win,dont offer $10 then.My point is that they just send an email that i am a bonuse abuser so they cant pay me bla bla bla.
Of course like all of you(i think)we deposit and yes ,if they offer some free money,we take it and give it a try.
I really hate this.they take and accept my deposits but if you win with some free money they offer you,you are a bonus abuser,,,,
I am from the netherlands so excuse me for my english but i had to make this post..
I also send a Pm to Robrival to look at my account but no answer back yet
Thanks for reading.

[lojo]

Your english is quite good

As I don't use bonuses at Rival casinos I'm not familiar with the terms and conditions. Did they give you any specific terms they think you have broken or reasons why your play was unacceptable? Or simply deny based on a broad term of 'abuse'.

Looking forward to answers and your response from Rob.
Good luck

[vinylweatherman]

This is the SECOND time Mayan Fortune have done this to a player. Getting $10 up to $200 is LUCKY, there is no known "abuse" ploy that can achieve this with the regularity that makes it an abusers ATM.
Worse, the casino didn't lock out this player after first reaching the $200, BUT enticed a $20 deposit to comply with the criteria for cashing out.
The player did NOT then just "do a runner" by immediately cashing out the $20, but played for a rounded balance and gave the deposit to the casino and just went for the winnings.
This player seems to have had no issues whatsoever with any of the other mentioned, ecept this was the FIRST time they managed to cash out.

So, what this player was doing was ABSOLUTELY FINE, UNTIL the first winning session. IF terms were being routinely breached, this was happening at the others - another case of selective application of the rules when players win? - or worse, no rules breached, just didn't want to pay.

If the $200 is to be confiscated, they ALL deposits are due to be returned as per standard "f u clause" rules, as this player was playing an unfair contract, winnings would have been voided the first time a winning session was made - just happened to be well down the line.

We'll have no BS about these being "different casinos" as we have been previously informed that there is a central shared database of "unwanted" players. They would have known what kind of player this was after the first couple of deposits, they could have taken action then. This looks like a cynical move to extract as many losing deposits as possible till the "abuse" rule had to be invoked after a withdrawal.

If this lot are trying to scare players away from trying a new software brand, this has done the trick for me. This kind of thing used to be seen only with RTG, then we had some MG casinos trying it, and William Hill (crypto).
HYPE, the other newish brand that came to light around the same time, effectively went bust leaving players & affiliates high & dry, and now Rival seems to be another risky place to play if any of their promotions are used.
Given that promotions are the main thing that online casinos use to compete in the market, playing without them is probably not worth it while playing at others WITH their promotions is available.
If they want to attract players without promotions, then these players need a better deal on game payouts and wagering comps - these are depressed because the money goes to fund the promotional aspect, and if players cannot use these they are not getting the same value for money as players that can use promotions.

[RobRival]

Hello,

I have messaged the casino manager and the account has been reviewed and an error was indeed made. I have pm'd you with details. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Rob

[vinylweatherman]

Hello,

I have messaged the casino manager and the account has been reviewed and an error was indeed made. I have pm'd you with details. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Rob

Surely this account has already been "reviewed by the casino manager" BEFORE such drastic (and now public) action was taken against what now appears to be an innocent player?
Was this the SAME "mistake" that featured in the last thread?

Perhaps players should avoid playing there till these mistakes have been ironed out of the system - their experience will then be less stressful.

[lojo]

These two mistakes seem to be close together in time, and it does make me wonder about how many have occured to people without knowledge of or access to a quality forum.
I just made a small deposit today at another Rival casino, and hate to say, I probably won't deposit again until we see some light. I didn't use a bonus, but that's not the point. As long as casinos offer bonuses they need to treat each player fairly or they probably won't be seeing my business. That doesn't leave me with many options, and my personal opinions of bonus strategy are fairly well known, but I've never been afraid to take a stand and if I have to limit my gaming options for my own self-respect, I will.

Rob has always been open and transparent here... is this a rogue-ish manager that you guys need to reign in? I'd hate to see a bad precedent set that would affect the good name Rival has in all of its other casinos.

Edit: I am slightly concerned that there may be a strategy that is exploitive, but not properly termed against and that Rival may become too accomodating to their own detriment. I'm just not very sharp on the bonus thing.

[sdaddy]

Here we go again. Now we're being told an "error was made" in this latest case of Rival voiding winnings by invoking it's subjective bonus abuse clause.

Players may have given Rival the benefit of the doubt last time, but they're not buying this anymore. Obviously, what these cases have shown is an established policy that's in effect.

Perhaps players should avoid playing there till these mistakes have been ironed out of the system - their experience will then be less stressful.

Agreed. Nothing less than Rival changing its T&Cs and publicly repudiating such practices will now restore player confidence, imo.

[lojo]

Agreed. Nothing less than Rival changing its T&Cs and publicly repudiating such practices will now restore player confidence, imo.

I hope they do, for their sake as well as bonus player's. But I'm keeping an open mind that this is something that can be easily remedied before a whole slew of 'practioners' 'attack' Rival.

I could be all wet; but it seems there is a weakness in the bonus offers, the T&C, or there have been some unfortunately bad management decisions. (I don't consider two complaints to be indicative any more than two wins or losses in a row via RNG) but it does pique my interest as I had intended to play @Rival more.

I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

I have noticed the 'tightening up' of offers there lately, that's what makes me think they may be getting 'hit'. But again, I could be all wet.

[vinylweatherman]

I hope they do, for their sake as well as bonus player's. But I'm keeping an open mind that this is something that can be easily remedied before a whole slew of 'practioners' 'attack' Rival.

I could be all wet; but it seems there is a weakness in the bonus offers, the T&C, or there have been some unfortunately bad management decisions. (I don't consider two complaints to be indicative any more than two wins or losses in a row via RNG) but it does pique my interest as I had intended to play @Rival more.

I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

I have noticed the 'tightening up' of offers there lately, that's what makes me think they may be getting 'hit'. But again, I could be all wet.

The exploited weakness theory explanation might work, but THIS player turned a $10 bonus into $200, and then did NOT exploit the deposit rules by immediately withdrawing the $220, but "gave" the $20 back to the casino and just took the $200, and this probably didn't even cover the losses at the others.
The ONLY thing this player seems to have done is open accounts at 4 Rival casinos, is this against the T & C, if not, it is no more "wrong" than a player opening accounts at 4 separate Microgaming casinos (assuming there is nothing on the website that indicates all the Rival casinos count as one single "group", such as Microgaming's Jackpot Factory's 4 casinos.

Two complaints might indicate that 3 players have been "screwed" with no idea how to further their complaint. This is based on the recent survey that showed around 40% of active players visited this, and/or other, fora.
They may have been posted close together, but they may NOT have happened this close together.

[chuchu59]

This cannot be an oversight again, can it? I await your reply, Robrival.