[IN PROGRESS] Luckyacecasino - bonus "abuse" problem

[vinylweatherman]

I suggest that all these complainants go to eCogra first, before deluging Max with PAB's. If there is a problem with them displaying the seal, this will galvanise eCogra into action, as they will see how big a problem this is.

If the relationship with 888.com is not clear in the terms and conditions, then they should not be calling players "bonus abusers" purely on the basis of them having played at 888.com before. They must have proper grounds for claiming "bonus abuse", such as players mathematically manipulating the SUB, cashing out, and then moving on to the next "white label" to attempt the same.
I suspect this new casino, and it's bonus, have appeared on some bonus whoring site, and that after this, someone else has posted about the Casinomeister PAB service, but not about eCogra. This would cause these players to use PAB without first attempting to use eCogra. Given that the seal is displayed, these players should be assuming eCogra deal with such issues until they hear otherwise.

If I find out where, I'll let Max know.

[maxd]

LATER: What follows is the original text of this post. As mentioned above I was barking up the wrong tree. Please see this post for the new improved take on this issue.
---------------

As explained above this means there are no grounds on which to pursue your PAB. I'll be marking it "RESOLVED" and will consider it a closed case.

[Roar]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

I suggest that all these complainants go to eCogra first, before deluging Max with PAB's. If there is a problem with them displaying the seal, this will galvanise eCogra into action, as they will see how big a problem this is.

vwm eCOGRA have already written in concise terms that the Luck Ace Casino site is not a member of their programme. That avenue of appeal for the present minute is closed.

[tsj]

Originally Posted by maxd

As explained above this means there are no grounds on which to pursue your PAB. I'll be marking it "RESOLVED" and will consider it a closed case.

Ok mate... no problem... and thanks anyway

[Fender1]

Shame on you Max. If thats the best you can do, you have no right to be the complaints mamager. Move over and let someone with some balls do the job

Here we have a case of blatant systemic abuse, by a casino towards a large number of its players

This is NOT the case that the casino beleives that its bonus policy has been abused. This IS a case of a casino attempting to steal players winnings on a large scale, as bad as anything I have encountered in all my years in the business.

And when players turn to this site for help, you turn your back on them.

[Roar]

Originally Posted by maxd

It's becoming clear to me that LuckyAce has, or is in the process of, returning a lot of player deposits and closing their accounts (though not necessarily in that order).

While this may not be the sort of thing that makes the casino very popular it is well within their rights to do so. Every player at Lucky Ace agrees to the following points in their Legal Warning when they sign on:



So, if you receive one of those "goodbye" letters AND you get your deposit back then you have no grounds to complain and certainly no grounds for a PAB.

So let me spell this out: if your Lucky Ace account is closed and you get your deposit back then they are doing exactly what you agreed to let them do and there are no grounds for a PAB.

If they withhold all of your monies or simply aren't paying you then yes, there's ground for complaint and you're welcome to do so as long as you comply fully with the rules of the PAB process. In particular this means that you have read and respected Rule #1 of the PAB process namely you have "done as much as possible to resolve this problem on your own."

That latter bit means that you have repeatedly tried to contact them regarding some grave issue, such as non-payment, and after some reasonable period of time -- say 5 business days or more -- you have received no meaningful response.

What really frosts my muffins is that a number of the PAB applicants haven't done doodly to pursue their issues on their own. In some cases they received their "goodbye" letter and the very same day they do the PAB without ever having done a blessed thing on their own. It's as if someone somewhere told then "hey, don't like what you're getting -- or think you might get! -- from LuckyAce? No worries, just sign up and PAB at Casinomeister!" This is very bad advice! And quite likely to grievously annoy the one person who will be processing your PAB, namely me.

Make no mistake, I am singularly underwhelmed with the things Lucky Ace is doing and even less impressed with the things they are failing to do -- like provide a contact person or representative to help us deal with this situation -- but that doesn't make them a Rogue casino, nor does it validate a tsunami of spurious PABs. Sadly all it really means is that you might want to consider the wisdom of taking your action elsewhere.

"Quote:
In the event that the Company believes a user is abusing or attempting to abuse a bonus or other promotion, or is likely to benefit through abuse or lack of good faith from a gaming policy adopted by the Company, then the Company may, at its sole discretion, deny, withhold or withdraw from any user any bonus or promotion, or rescind any policy with respect to that user, either temporarily or permanently, or terminate that user's access to the Service and/or block that user's account."


With great respect Max I can not agree with your interpretation with the above quoted T+C with respect to those players who have completed wagering and a withdrawal awaiting receipt of deposit and winnings.

I have bolded the relevant terms for clarity.

This particular T+C can only be applied in a present or future tense with respect to a Players wagering activity. These T+Cs can not be applied retrospectively to play at the Casino. If the T+Cs were intended to be applied retrospectively then the word(s) has/have would be required to give that meaning and intent.

I respectfully ask you to reconsider your stated position above in the light of what IMHO is the most appropriate interpretation and meaning conveyed by the subject T+Cs.

[maxd]

LATER: What follows is the original text of this post. As mentioned above I was barking up the wrong tree. Please see this post for the new improved take on this issue.
---------------

Sorry I couldn't help more but when they pull the "bonus abuser" card AND refund your deposit my hands are tied.

I'm not saying I think they're great guys for doing this but I am saying their actions are justified per the terms they offer and you agreed to when you signed on there. It's a bummer but it is what it is.

[maxd]

LATER: What follows is the original text of this post. As mentioned above I was barking up the wrong tree. Please see this post for the new improved take on this issue.
---------------

And I respectfully decline. Aside from the fact that we're getting into serious hair-splitting here -- as in you can choose one interpretation while I might choose another. Are either of us lawyers? Is this a court? -- you might want to note the following from those same T&Cs:

The way I read this they can close your account, take "any amounts owed by you to us" which could be taken to mean the winnings and the bonus, refund your deposit and send you on your way. Which is what they've done.

I'm telling you that there is no point in pursuing a case that they will tell me is invalid because of their T&Cs. After all, I'd be appealing to them for resolution not some disinterested third party. Frankly if you want to debate this further I suggest you engage a lawyer and take it up with the casino. As far as I'm concerned it's "case closed" for the reasons given.

[Fender1]

You could blacklist them for starters. And there is plenty you COULD do if you wanted to.

Its time to stand up and be counted Max

CASINO WATCHDOG AND PLAYER ADVOCATE SINCE 1998

Come on man, you can do better than this.

[maxd]

LATER: What follows is the original text of this post. As mentioned above I was barking up the wrong tree. Please see this post for the new improved take on this issue.
---------------

Balls?!? What have balls got to do with this? Have you read my posts here? Do you have any idea what's actually going on?

Am I not the one juggling the 20+ complaints (many of which are invalid because the person didn't bother to read the rules for submitting one in the first place), trying to get eCOGRA and/or 888 to step up to the plate, pressing the so-called 888 rep here to take some action, and working my weekends (basically for free) to get this mess sorted out? Not to mention all the other non-LuckyAce issues on my plate. And you have the brass to say I have no balls?!?

Here's balls for you: players who agree to "we can rape you when and where we feel like it" Terms and Conditions simply in order to get a shot at a nice, fat, easy pickings bonus are fools! The casino always wins if they really want to play it that way and anyone who thinks differently is terminally naive. Yes, most casinos won't do what Lucky Ace is doing because their reputation would be shit if they did. That's a good thing and we should all play at those casinos. But when push comes to shove the T&Cs rule and here the T&Cs say "tough titty." End of story.

While we're on the subject of balls, how about we talk about what I can do to help this situation. I can recommend that Lucky Ace be black-listed for all the shit they've pulled and if their contribution to this issue doesn't improve I intend to do just that. I can also suggest that a close, hard look be taken at 888's responsibility in all this and I intend to do that too. And I can be up-front and straight with these players about what their real chances are in terms of getting any satisfaction out of their grievances. Have done. And last but not least I can ask you for an apology for your possibly well meant but seriously misplaced criticism.

There, how's that for balls?

My my, what an unpleasantly sanctimonious person you've managed to be. I may have found my first candidate for the "Ignore" filter.