iNetBet has confiscated my winnings!

[chuchu59]

LOL, didn't have any winnings...

That's the point Rob. If they are going to void your play like Mario, you should be treated the same ie your "$0" winnings confiscated and your deposit returned. Of course that could also mean that players can take advantage of this if they played allowed games, lost and then played a single game of VP just to get around this.

Inetbet has some explaining to do. Nevertheless, dont ask the OP to pm you this time. It wont work as he has been given the runaround for 4 weeks. I would also like to know the reason for altering the list of excluded games to include VP. If not for the latter, I would have accepted an explanation that Inet goofed up and what they had to do was to pay Mario. Now it gets worse.

[maxd]

My position in this case was based on the general exclusion found under the casino's Promotional Terms and Conditions which reads as follows (my bolding):

Unless otherwise stated offers do not apply to Craps, Roulette, Sic Bo, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play. Any play on these games using a balance that includes any bonus or part thereof, will result in all winnings becoming null and void.

In other words this particular bonus offer, or any other, does not apply to VP unless they specifically say it does, which they did not.

The original terms of the bonus did mention some games that were excluded but said nothing specific about Video Poker, hence the general exclusion of VP stands.

Sure, the casino could have made life easier by explicitly repeating their exclusion of VP in the bonus offer -- which apparently they later did -- but the way I read it the Terms have them covered: the bonus does not apply to VP unless they state it does, any play on VP using any bonus "will result in all winnings becoming null and void".

Furthermore the player obviously knew about the general exclusion of VP. To assume that that did not apply to this specific bonus because the casino failed to repeat the exclusion is a false interpretation of the T&Cs.

If there was some question in their mind as to whether the standing rule excluding VP had changed then the proper course of action would have been to ask the casino, which they did not.

The bottom line is that the player's assumptions about the T&Cs are not the casino's fault.

[RobWin]

I swear, it seems as though these casinos could just make it simple and say in the specific coupon that you are allowed to play this game and this game and that game and nothing else if you accept this coupon....why in the world would it be so hard to simply do this and then there would never be an issue with these coupons or the T's & C's...

[chuchu59]

My position in this case was based on the general exclusion found under the casino's Promotional Terms and Conditions which reads as follows (my bolding):



In other words this particular bonus offer, or any other, does not apply to VP unless they specifically say it does, which they did not.

The original terms of the bonus did mention some games that were excluded but said nothing specific about Video Poker, hence the general exclusion of VP stands.

Sure, the casino could have made life easier by explicitly repeating their exclusion of VP in the bonus offer -- which apparently they later did -- but the way I read it the Terms have them covered: the bonus does not apply to VP unless they state it does, any play on VP using any bonus "will result in all winnings becoming null and void".

Furthermore the player obviously knew about the general exclusion of VP. To assume that that did not apply to this specific bonus because the casino failed to repeat the exclusion is a false interpretation of the T&Cs.

If there was some question in their mind as to whether the standing rule excluding VP had changed then the proper course of action would have been to ask the casino, which they did not.

The bottom line is that the player's assumptions about the T&Cs are not the casino's fault.

Max,

I just cannot agree with you here. By stating that this specific Halloween promotion does not allow Craps, Roulette, MH Poker, BJ/21 variants or Baccarat it would obviously be felt by most that this would override the General Terms and Conditions otherwise it would serve no purpose in repeating most of the disallowed games and purposely omitting VP. This would seem to be a trap more than anything else as the casino should simply have said that the list of excluded games is in the General T's and C's.

If this specific promotion had listed something like Progressive Slots as exclusions which was not listed in the general T's and C's Inetbet may well have a case that the player should conform to not playing the other games listed as well. In listing all other games other than VP in the Halloween coupon, it does seem that they have given the green light for play on this and confiscation of winnings using this excuse is just not right IMO.

[Jasminebed]

Well, after a 2 hour and 40 min wait, I got a response to my email linking me to the FRONT page of the promotions. I read all that, and still had a question.

It's only $5, but this was not very helpful.

It's midnight now, I think I will just go to bed.

I've been a gambler for more than 30 years, and this is starting to get ridiculous. Even in the last 9 months since I have been a CM member, there seem to be more and more problems with online casinos.

[RobWin]

Well, after a 2 hour and 40 min wait, I got a response to my email linking me to the FRONT page of the promotions. I read all that, and still had a question.
It's only $5, but this was not very helpful.

It's midnight now, I think I will just go to bed.

I've been a gambler for more than 30 years, and this is starting to get ridiculous. Even in the last 9 months since I have been a CM member, there seem to be more and more problems with online casinos.

That's exactly the point we all were making in the other thread about the benefits to the players of having a live chat facility or phone service but there was no response there from INetBet regarding that...

[maxd]

I just cannot agree with you here ... it would obviously be felt by most that this would override the General Terms and Conditions otherwise it would serve no purpose in repeating most of the disallowed games.

I understand that you disagree, I suspect most players will ... and most casino peeps won't. "Pow-tay-toe" VS "pow-tat-o". Whatever, the crux of the issue is that "would obviously be felt by most" does not make it so.

If you read my post you'll see that I agree that the casino's terms on the bonus were not as clear or specific as they could have been. No argument from me, or them it would seem since they apparently updated the terms.

However, we're talking about shades of gray here: "most would think" and "could have been better" are not legally binding terms. The casino's T&Cs pretty much are.

As far as I can tell the terms specific on the bonus are basically a courtesy since the main T&Cs are binding unless otherwise stated. So it comes down to the casino having been less than 100% thorough in wording their courtesy description of the bonus. Ok, bummer, but not a Rogue-able offense if you ask me.

In fact, if you get right down to it I think this one boils down to splitting hairs. And once you get into that territory you've got to start falling back to the T&Cs for clarification. And you already know how I read these T&Cs so I won't repeat that again.

And yes I know, I am Satan and in league with devils.

[silcnlayc]

MaxD: If there was some question in their mind as to whether the standing rule excluding VP had changed then the proper course of action would have been to ask the casino, which they did not.In other words this particular bonus offer, or any other, does not apply to VP unless they specifically say it does, which they did not

This is also what I stated earlier. The base exclusions are always there unless they say they are overidden by the additional new ones for that coupon.

I agree with Max on this..that is why I stated what I did...it is there in black and white....and thats why coupons suck....there is always a catch to them..All card games always have a percentage used for the requirements...that should have been a tip off to the T&C's reverting to the base ones of the casino (the general ones from get go) Since this one did not state any terms on single hand VP, knowing a percentage is always applied to the WR for ANY card game, this should have been checked out BEFORE playing IMO.

I am not a VP player at all, but I did read these things a long time ago because of my love of blackjack...so it stuck in my mind...about the percentages applied...





.

[Jasminebed]

As far as I can tell the terms specific on the bonus are basically a courtesy since the main T&Cs are binding unless otherwise stated.

They were otherwise stated in this case. That is was an error on the casino's part is unfortunate, but the casino's error, not the player's.

[Jasminebed]

All card games always have a percentage used for the requirements...that should have been a tip off to the T&C's reverting to the base ones of the casino (the general ones from get go) Since this one did not state any terms on single hand VP, knowing a percentage is always applied to the WR for ANY card game, this should have been checked out BEFORE playing IMO.

Many casinos allow certain games with increased WR's, but that is not the issue here. It was not a failure to meet WR that resulted in a WITHDRAWAL being denied, but WINNINGS being denied.