Inetbet being unreasonable

[mitchy11]

Hi,

What do you all think of this scenario?

I registered at Inetbet. I heard they were a fine establishment. I claimed their first deposit coupon YYR88. I deposited $300. This is an after-wager bonus meaning I never receive any bonus funds upfront. Only after I finish the wagering do I receive a bonus. I played a bit and lost $105 of my own funds. I decided I did not want to finish the wagering to receive a bonus.

I ask that the bonus be canceled an I be allowed to withdraw. Both the cs and the rep. here are telling me I need to finish the wagering for the bonus. I replied I have not been given any bonus, don't want any bonus and have lost some of my own funds.

The rep. has been factually incorrect about this a few times, claiming I am trying somehow to take advantage of them by playing a bit, winning and then withdrawing. I have not won in fact. I have lost some of my own money but this seems to have eluded them.


Is this normal and fair behavior? I did not take any of their bonus funds. I never received any of their bonus funds. I played and lost my own funds. I now want to cancel the after-wager bonus that I never received. All I want is my own $195 back.

[LaHutti]

Well...that sounds like bs to me, since their T&C's clearly says that :

quote:
If coupon is applied to larger deposits coupon will become void. (amended Feb 2008)
/quote.

So actually you didn't request a bonus ... or rather your request for a bonus became void, because you deposited $300.
So they should just give you your remaining money back imo.

[chuchu59]

Mitchy11,

Just two questions. In the cashier section, did it state that the balance was withdrawable. If not, what were the wagering requirements stated there.

[mitchy11]

Hi chuchu,

All the balance is shown as withdrawable. There are no wager requirements shown. There never were because I never received any bonus. What do you think? Are they being unreasonable?

[mitchy11]

Further, the rep. has said the reasoning for not allowing me to withdraw was because I was "up." I pointed out that I was not in fact up but down $105. The rep. ignored this correction. Instead the rep. responded:


-You claimed a bonus no diasagreement there.

-You now do not want to meet the wagering that you agreed to when claiming the bonus.

-The rules are very clear

-You will not be allowed to withdraw until you meet the wagering.


Huh? The rep. is acting as if I actually received a bonus and now don't want to meet the wagering. The rep. seems to conveniently forget the I never received any bonus, played with any bonus, lost any bonus or want this bonus.

Can anyone explain to me how I am gaining an edge on a casino by playing with my owns funds, losing them, and then wanting to withdraw my own lesser funds while forfeiting a bonus that I never received? I asked this if the rep. but again the person had no response.

It seems they are locking me in out of greed only.

[LaHutti]

ok...It's been brought to my attention, by a rep on here, that my statement is incorrect, and I have to agree, after rereading the bonus part of their website.
Your bonus is NOT void, since you can get bonused up to a $400 deposit.
Sorry about that, and thanks to the rep, who kindly mad me aware of my mistake..
Now that also changes things, as you deposited and put in the code to get the bonus. Now since you lost some of your own money, you're saying you don't want the bonus anyway, and you want your (remaining) money back.
I really don't think they're being unreasonable, in asking you to keep your part of the deal. The deal is really crappy, if you ask me. The bonus should be paid before you wager anything, to NOT end up in a situation like this, imo ...I see you putting in the code in, for a bonus, as a contract, that before you started losing, you had every intention of filling your part, and the casino still have every intention filling their part.
It all seems a little weird, asking you to fill the requirements before you get the bonus...but there are a lot of weird things out there, and that's a different story, but you accepted to take the deal, so..... guess you're just gonna have to eat it.

[LaHutti]

Originally Posted by mitchy11

It seems they are locking me in out of greed only.

Lol...that's a funny statement...why the h... else would they ?
I'm afraid that's not only this casino, but every single one of them. They're businesses, and wanna drag as many people in, and make as much monnies as possible, in every way they can ( Bonusses being a pretty big part of that, judging from the amount of promotions they throw at us ).

[mitchy11]

Originally Posted by LaHutti

Lol...that's a funny statement...why the h... else would they ?
I'm afraid that's not only this casino, but every single one of them. They're businesses, and wanna drag as many people in, and make as much monnies as possible, in every way they can ( Bonusses being a pretty big part of that, judging from the amount of promotions they throw at us ).

Yes but in doing such actions against one person they may lose the custom of some others thereby actually hurting the business in the long run.

[mitchy11]

Originally Posted by LaHutti

ok...It's been brought to my attention, by a rep on here, that my statement is incorrect, and I have to agree, after rereading the bonus part of their website.
Your bonus is NOT void, since you can get bonused up to a $400 deposit.
Sorry about that, and thanks to the rep, who kindly mad me aware of my mistake..

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying but if you are taking their word for it then it is like taking a tobacco company's word that nicotine is not addictive. Have a look for yourself at the rules. I did.


Here is what is says about the bonus I took:

*Limitations for initial deposit bonuses:

*50% Deposit bonus: This offers applies only to your first deposit with iNetBet and your bonus will be credited to your account once the total of all your bets is twenty times your initial deposit. For example if you deposit $100 and play Tri-Card Poker at $10.00 per hand, you must play at least 200 hands ($2000) before you can redeem your full bonus.

Bonus must be turned over 20 times before cashing out. Maximum bonus allowed is $200.00.

Wagering requirements are increased to twenty five times for Video Poker, thirty times deposit and bonus for all play on War and Multi-Hand Video Poker and sixty times for all Blackjack and 21 related games (amended 2nd Oct 2006). All wagering must be completed prior to any withdrawal being made.


As you can see it says BONUS must be wagered 20 times. It says nothing about my DEPOSIT needing to be wagered a certain amount before requesting a withdrawal of my deposit only. Their own rules say that once you get the bonus it must be wagered a certain amount of times before withdrawing. They mention nothing about not being able to withdraw your deposit while forfeiting the bonus. I agree that if I had actually receive a bonus I would be bound by the terms. I did not though.


Some will no doubt point to the last sentence which says, "All wagering must be completed prior to any withdrawal being made." However, it's placement within the paragraph about the wagering AFTER the bonus is received will lead many readers to think it applies ONLY to the bonus. I never had any bonus and it is not applicable to me.


The rep. is now hiding under the "rules are rules" barrier. But in this case the rules lean toward my side of things I think not the casinos. First the rep. said I could not have my deposit back because I was up. I proved otherwise. Then the rep. said I could not have my deposit back because I would gain an advantage. I asked exactly how that would be and received no reasoning. Now the rep. says "the rules are the rules." What rules? I have shown the rules are ambiguous at best and if read strictly actually lean toward me.

A casino can't declare that a player abide by the rules when the rules don't pertain.

[chuchu59]

In the true spirit of a contract, there must be consideration from both sides. The act of claiming the bonus through a code is not consideration but the deposit is. This is now complicated because the wagering must be completed before the bonus is given. Before the wagering is complete, the casino does not need to give the bonus so in all fairness, if the wagering has not been completed the player should not be bound to finish them especially since there is no loss or consideration on the casino's part. Put it in another way, if the casino has not fulfilled the part of the deal, why should the player? It is all future tense and tilted favorably in favour of the casino.