Metro wouldn't pay $6600

[pangloss]

Did I not mark my calendar correctly? Is today Gang-Up-On-A-New-Affiliate-Who-Doesn't-Even-Promote-This-Shitty-Casino Day?

Sorry, but I happen to have ETHICS, so your unfounded comments don't hold water either.

The OP (his native language not English) came to this Forum seeking guidance and assistance over a large no-pay (winnings) incident. The general consensus of opinion supports the substance of his complaint. Notwithstanding, you turn around and bash the OP saying,

“…..just be aware that 99.99% of all bonuses are SLOTS-ONLY these days, thanks to people such as yourself.”

You then cast further aspersions on the OP’s good character by the insinuation,

“…considering this person's location - one that is usually excluded from playing bonuses in the first place due to massive amounts of player fraud - I find the whole thing a bit fishy.”

Cry-baby affiliates that live in glass houses should not throw stones.


…

[chuchu59]

A little suspicion is acceptable since there have been many players trying to use the forum as a tool to virtually force casinos to pay their winnings whether legitmate or not. SW may lean a bit on the side of the casino as many of us tilt towards the players. As always, we should discuss and debate rationally in the forum. However, I wouldnt take SW's remarks as degrading to the OP.

Calm down, guys.

[SlotsWizard]

Cry-baby affiliates that live in glass houses should not throw stones

Boo... and might I add, hoo!

Would you care to explain how the glass house/stones cliché applies to me? I don't give a flying turd about the casino in question here, nor do I currently have a financial interest in any other casino.

So I've given you some more rope. You know what to do with it. Don't let us down! Your posting history is second to none when it comes to blaming everyone else for your gambling problems.

example
example
example

[lojo]

I guess we can pit opinion and interpretation against the same for days... I can only imagine one or two more salient points that could be brought up. If he PaB'd then it will be handled.

I have my opinion and will just quote HGB instead of repeating in different posts over months and months ad nauseum

...a player smart enough to find and exploit loopholes or ambiguity, and smart enough to find the resources to learn to hunt/wh0re bonuses, and smart enough to come here for help, really ought to be smart enough to know that casinos are the arbiters of what the rules are and what they mean, and they should be smart enough to ask and get things clear before handing over their money.

[gerilege]

I agree that the T&Cs are not completely clear. They should only add a few words (I added with bold):
Play at any of our other games is permitted with your own funds however ... and the welcome bonus cannot be used to play those games.

Still, I feel a bit of greediness here as well. As long as you use funds from your cash balance you can play any games, and you probably won't get into trouble. But as the bonus is clearly intended to play slots, use it for slots.

Boss casinos first deduct your wager from your cash balance, and if there's no cash balance left, then they will deduct it from your bonus balance, so you might not need to risk the bonus funds at all, and you can still win. (In case of mixed (cash&bonus) bets, the winnings go to the two balances proportionally. In case of pure bonus bet it goes to the bonus balance.) I think it's a fair offer, and though I agree that the T&Cs are a bit unclear, I wouldn't call it rogue behaviour.

[sdaddy]

one more thing, "permitted" could be taken to mean simply that the software won't stop you from doing so. read it like this "you can play these games, but doing it before the wr is met is not cricket". read 'not cricket' as 'prohibited', as 'not allowed' or as 'does not contribute', which we've come to realize means prohibited.

Man, what a tortured way to turn language saying something is "permitted" into the exact opposite. You guys are working hard to discredit this player's case, I'll give you that.

This is really starting to bring back memories of Bill Clinton's argument that he was not lying when he testified about Monica Lewinsky because "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

[lojo]

Man, what a tortured way to turn language saying something is "permitted" into the exact opposite. You guys are working hard to discredit this player's case, I'll give you that.

This is really starting to bring back memories of Bill Clinton's argument that he was not lying when he testified about Monica Lewinsky because "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

What we say won't influence what Bryan will do if the guy PaB. Afaik, he's still all about the black and white of the matter.
If you look again you'll see that Happy seems to swing both ways on this one, and SlotWizard has said 'half a dozen times' the terms are ambiguous. The ChuChu and Gerilege posts seem very well reasoned.

When someone comes along with a complaint that doesn't look 'exploit' related on the surface I'm almost always 50/50 leaning toward the player. But when dealing with someone who seems to practice the bonus craft, I flip easily.

If your premise is that any ambiguity should favor the player, and that's the only way to get casinos to tighten and straighten up their T&C's, then I may have to take another look. But if you are in the end, only defending bonuscraft, we're in opposite camps on the broader issue.

[sdaddy]

If your premise is that any ambiguity should favor the player, and that's the only way to get casinos to tighten and straighten up their T&C's, then I may have to take another look. But if you are in the end, only defending bonuscraft, we're in opposite camps on the broader issue.

Actually, my position is that this is not about ambiguity favoring the player, but that the language in the terms clearly allows what the player did. In that sense, it's irrelevant whether or not I am trying to defend bonus chasers. But since you brought it up, the truth is that I rarely play with bonuses these days, so I'm not approaching this as someone just defending a narrow self-interest.

This is about whether or not casinos - or players for that matter - should have to follow the rules as they're written, simple as that. If we start moving to an environment where application of rules is "flexible" or "discretionary," then it's not just bonus chasers who are going to be affected, all of us eventually will.

[happygobrokey]

it's been established many times over that "doesn't count for wagering" IS ambiguous (different casinos treat it differently) and warrants clarification before embarking on a potentially damning course of action.

in this instance it says "permitted" but immediately after it says "but playing on these games before wagering is met", and sure the next part is "won't count for wagering", but once wagering is met it obviously doesn't matter if the play counts for wagering or not. if the middle part weren't there, and it said simply "permitted but not counting for wagering" makes it clear you can play it, but it still leaves you open for the casino to say "doesn't count" means "not allowed while bonus wr is unfulfilled".

so "won't count for wagering" is ambiguous in itself, "but playing them before wagering" seems to imply there might be trouble with playing them before wagering, and "permitted" alone does not indicate when or under what conditions the permission holds. i do not find this to be a "clear" statement at all, and i think a reasonable person would want to investigate what the words are really meant to mean.

it IS ambiguous all over the place (i gave three different examples earlier), and it is NOT "crystal clear" by any means. i just think asking for a "yes you can" is prudent instead of believing that no "no you can't" is a green light in this circumstance.

[lojo]

Actually, my position is that this is not about ambiguity favoring the player, but that the language in the terms clearly allows what the player did. In that sense, it's irrelevant whether or not I am trying to defend bonus chasers. But since you brought it up, the truth is that I rarely play with bonuses these days, so I'm not approaching this as someone just defending a narrow self-interest.

This is about whether or not casinos - or players for that matter - should have to follow the rules as they're written, simple as that. If we start moving to an environment where application of rules is "flexible" or "discretionary," then it's not just bonus chasers who are going to be affected, all of us eventually will.

I totally respect that. I can see your position from your challenge to PlayShare, the fact that you don't 'automatically' jump on the side of the player, and some other past posts.

(whether you play with bonuses might not be a point if you are an affiliate or have other unannounced interests in casinos or patrons 'winning' or 'losing' these conflicts)

I understand the mentality of a public defender taking on a known crook to make sure the law of the land is upheld for everyone - there is no law of the land, only fair and unfair for now. That's what I'm looking at. I don't have a better argument than you, or CasinoMeister have for 'it is up to the casino to make the rules (IN PLAIN LANGUAGE) and accept a bet or not.'
I don't.

I guess I go for motive when thinking these things through. I don't know BM from a BM, but I figure they're bushcrooked somehow because we yanks can't play there, and I figger the OP was out to do someone's money in cuz he thought he was clever. Condemn the fux who promote slithering around the bonuses and then I will truley believe you are on the side of right and reason.

See ya in wildcards?? not yet.