PKR revoking bonus for no reason.

[vinylweatherman]

Beg your pardon. No such list exists.

Posted experiences of some players seems to indicate otherwise. It may not be official, but there is certainly some sharing of information about "advantage players" between otherwise unconnected casinos.

Indeed, some casinos explicitly state the existence of such a central blacklist of advantage players in their terms and conditions, which usually state that players found guilty of a breach (including advantage play) will have their details placed onto a register of "bonus abusers" or "fraudulent players".

If no such Playtech list exists, it is very hard to understand how a player being banned at one Playtech casino then finds their account locked at another, and UNRELATED (other than by software) Playtech casino and told they "have been identified as a bonus abuser", with this having happened without a single game being played.

If no such OFFICIAL list exists with Playtech, then these casinos operating this unofficial list are in breach of privacy rules, which in the UK would be the Data Protection Act, and similar rules in the EU.

Topoor, if she wishes, can prove the point either way by registering at another Playtech casino that has no relationship to PKR, and seeing if she is eligible for bonus offers as stated in the terms and conditions. A free chip would be the best test, as trying another deposit bonus would go sour should such a list be operating.

The reps for Rival have admitted that Rival DO keep a central list of players deemed "advantage players", and this list can be used by other Rival powered casinos to block players from more bonuses.

[spearmaster]

Posted experiences of some players seems to indicate otherwise. It may not be official, but there is certainly some sharing of information about "advantage players" between otherwise unconnected casinos.

Playtech is a software provider. Its sole role is to provide software and support to operators. It provides no additional services whatsoever.

Indeed, some casinos explicitly state the existence of such a central blacklist of advantage players in their terms and conditions, which usually state that players found guilty of a breach (including advantage play) will have their details placed onto a register of "bonus abusers" or "fraudulent players".

"Some casinos" does not equal "Playtech", for one thing. Furthermore, a "register" may exist somewhere but nowhere is the scope of that register mentioned.

If no such Playtech list exists, it is very hard to understand how a player being banned at one Playtech casino then finds their account locked at another, and UNRELATED (other than by software) Playtech casino and told they "have been identified as a bonus abuser", with this having happened without a single game being played.

Again, this does not equal a "Playtech" list. You can make assumptions if you like but when you use a wide-encompassing term which includes all operators using the same software, you should be especially careful that your information is correct.

If no such OFFICIAL list exists with Playtech, then these casinos operating this unofficial list are in breach of privacy rules, which in the UK would be the Data Protection Act, and similar rules in the EU.

LOL. I'm not going to comment on this because as far as I am concerned, the non-existence of a list hardly represents a breach of privacy.

Topoor, if she wishes, can prove the point either way by registering at another Playtech casino that has no relationship to PKR, and seeing if she is eligible for bonus offers as stated in the terms and conditions. A free chip would be the best test, as trying another deposit bonus would go sour should such a list be operating.

The reps for Rival have admitted that Rival DO keep a central list of players deemed "advantage players", and this list can be used by other Rival powered casinos to block players from more bonuses.

Topoor is of course welcome to do as she pleases without interference from anyone.

However, I again implore you to be careful about making wide-ranging accusations or representations without basis in fact.

[chuchu59]

There is a list shared by at least some Playtech casinos as I wasnt welcome when registering at a couple of playtechs several years ago while I had some arguments with one of them. However, this is definitely not a central blacklist as I was still able to register and play at Betfred and Bet365 which turned out to be excellent until the whole 'Playtech Platform denied access to players from Hong Kong.

Shared lists of unwelcome players is nothing new. Many Rival casinos and to a certain extent, some groups of RTG casinos also do the same. It is strange, however, that only the rogues, eg Powerbet did not accept my registration years ago.

[topoor]

Pending legal advice I am removing.

[topoor]

Pending legal advice I am removing.

[topoor]

I have removed the above two posts on the advice of a solicitor I contacted today. The posts contained details of an email and telephone exchange between a representative of PKR and myself.

I cant disclose too much at this stage but I will tell you that I have a very good indication as to why my Moneybookers account was closed.

I am taking legal action.

[thelawnet]

It is disturbing that there are apparently no reputable gaming regulators.

We already knew that Antigua and Kahnawake were a bunch of cowboys.

We've yet to hear back from Malta about the very straightforward issue of non-payment of winnings.

And apparently Alderney, a Crown Dependency of the United Kingdom, is incapable of understanding that online gambling, while random, is highly predictable, in that players are only capable of certain actions, because the software determines which actions the player can take.

And given that the casino has 100% control over what the player can do, it is up to the casino to clearly describe what is and is not acceptable behaviour, and if the player does not break any of these specific rules they must pay the player.

I can only imagine that the Alderney Gambling Control Commission is staffed by people who do not understand how online gaming works.

The basic premiss of a wagering requirement is that you meet the requirement and then you can withdraw immediately. If meeting the requirement is not to be considered enough, then they need to increase it. It's not hard. Meet the requirement, withdraw immediately if you want, get paid. Don't meet it, face the consequences as described in the casino's terms.

And of course if they don't like players making small bets, there's a fair few casinos that dictate minimum and/or maximum bets, so it's not hard for them to follow suit. It's not rocket science. Everything they determine, ex post facto, to be bonus abuse, can be described in a rule dictated to the player in advance, and fairly enforceable accordingly. As I said, online gambling is determinstic. Players can't slip cards into the deck. They can't bribe the dealer. They can only play in the way the casino designed, and as such the casino needs to make any rules that derogate from the fact that they are the ones controlling their customer's options, 100% explicit and clear as to their effect, in advance of arbitrarily deciding to confiscate player funds.

To make it worse, in the case of these Playtech bonuses in fact, the second you meet the requirement a dialogue box pops up, which says something to the effect of "$200 bonus now withdrawable". They are telling you to withdraw! You can't continue playing without clicking on the box that says in not quite so many words "withdraw your money"!

Nobody should be surprised if you popup a big box telling people they can withdraw that they then do so straight away.

I played at PKR a few months back, depositing $2800 to clear their bonus, withdrawing only $753. And when I saw that dialogue box popup, you can bet I was straight out of there without wagering another cent: I wasn't hanging around to lose another $2k.

[Jufo]

I have removed the above two posts on the advice of a solicitor I contacted today. The posts contained details of an email and telephone exchange between a representative of PKR and myself.

I cant disclose too much at this stage but I will tell you that I have a very good indication as to why my Moneybookers account was closed.

I am taking legal action.

Good, keep fighting! Also AGCC should be contacted with the updated information so maybe they will review their ruling. Your case sets an important example how this kind of situations can be dealt with in the future.

[rreevy]

I don't play Casino Hold'em, but it appears to be similar to many casino poker variants in that it involves placing an ante bet, followed by a raise: in this case twice the ante bet.

For this reason, Casino Hold'em might not be such a bad game from an advantage play perspective. The house edge is the total loss as a percentage of the initial bet (ante) only, not the total amount wagered (ante+raise). The loss rate as a percentage of the total amount rate - the Wiz calls this the 'element of risk' - would probably be much lower. Since it is the total amount wagered that counts towards wager requirements, it might be possible to have an expected profit playing Casino Hold'em after all.

I'm not in any way defending the casino, just (hopefully) clarifying this and offering a possible explanation as to why they acted as they did. There have been some great posts on this forum as to why casinos should be obliged to pay when people meet the T&Cs and I agree 100%.

I really hope to see a happy ending to this one. Especially with regard to the Moneybookers issue and the fact that Alderney has sided with the casino, I think this could have a major impact on confidence in the industry as a whole.

[lots0]

Because of several reasons listed in this thread and in the other PKR.com thread here at CM, I am as of today adding PKR.com to my sites Casino Hall of Shame Blacklist. (Not Associated with CasinoMeister's Rogue List).

I have Zero tolerance for liars and cheaters and PKR.com in my opinion, appear to be both.

The deciding factor for me, is the fact that PKR.com is and has been blatantly attempting to mislead players into thinking that they are licensed to operate by the UKGC, when in fact they are not.

Edited... after I posted this PKR.com has changed the link at the bottom of their main page from
"Licensed by the UKGC" to "Licensed by the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and the UK Gambling Commission."

I still believe this statement by PKR.com is an attempt to mislead players into thinking that PKR.com is licensed to operate by the UKGC, when in fact they are not.