iNetBet has confiscated my winnings!

[chuchu59]

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.

Yes, it was obviously otherwise stated in this case. A list of excluded games was mentioned in the Ts and Cs for this promo. How could this have been interpreted in any other way? I would love to see Inet showing an example of a coupon which included otherwise stated terms to differntiate between the 2.

[Zoozie]

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.

Sorry Max, this is not correct. Casino T&C does not work this way. INetBet always mention disallowed game and not allowed games. With this logic they could never ever have a video poker bonus or in fact other game that was general excluded list. And they have offered bonuses in the past where video poker and other games was allowed. And with this bonuses they still list BJ etc. at disallowed.

The worst part of this incident is that they changed the T&C and lie about it. Also why would they change the T&C if they believed every bonus term was perfectly clear?
This fact alone should be something that you put on your TODO list, Max... Besides what about RobWin and all the other players that also played single-line VP, but did not win ?

The truth is they simply forgot to mention video-poker and later tried to change it after players had started playing.

If they had written video-poker was disallowed, you could argue that multi-hand video is video-poker. But it was the OTHER way around. They only stated multi-video poker is not allowed. Single-line (normal) video poker is NOT multi-video poker. Besides why would they even write multi-video poker again IF it was allready on the general list?

Also INetBet often uses different pay table for same VP variant in single-linie and multi-line versions. Therefore it is not even obvious that they had
made a mistake.

Rival used to (changed recently..) also have bonus where eigther normal or multi-video poker was allowed. And MG casinos has often also allowed 4-hand dueces wild, while not allowing single-hand dueces wild. (due to different paytables).

The standard term for not allowing any forms of VP is surprisingly:
All forms of video poker are not allowed.

And this does not give rise to any mistakes.

[maxd]

Sorry Max, this is not correct. Casino T&C does not work this way.

Not to be blunt about it but "says who?" I've got my read on it, others have theirs. Given the way the Terms are worded and what the player understood the usual Terms to be I don't see that the casino should be taken to task for this.

I could go on but ... ugh! I've said my piece.

[CasinoKidd]

I feel like the player should be paid. He followed the terms listed. He should at the very least recieve his money back.

[maxd]

He should at the very least recieve his money back.

I believe he did. The bonus and deposit were applied back to the account for him to fulfil the wagering correctly.

[chuchu59]

Given the reaction here, cant Inet simply supply us with a copy of a past promo that qualifies under the 'unless otherwise stated' tag.

[iNetBet Promos]

Hi Everyone,
I dont really want to get too involved in a lenghty debate here as this issue has been dealt with by other parties.

I do however know that at no stage did any monies become withdrawable. The reason being the coupon itself was set up not to allow VP so at no stage did Mario77's wagering requirements reduce. This in itself would clearly show VP was excluded.

The players deposit and bonus were returned to their account.

ChuChu59: Here are a couple of examples of prior coupons which allow usually excluded games:



Here is another example:

Single Hand Video Poker Coupon

Valid until January 22nd
Deposit between $10 - $50
Enter coupon code: WRNVH
Play through deposit and 20x at Single Hand Video Poker
Receive 25% Bonus
(non match bonus)

[Upset]

I say, like the american public keep telling congress. NO BAILOUT! Let them fail. If these casinos wants to make you wager 20X their petty $50. On games they know you have a slim to none chance of fulfilling. Let them FAIL! How in the hell, can you expect to give a person $50 and tell them they must turn it over 20X on just slots? I can not do it without the help of Blackjack or some other card game. One would have a better chance of depositing $50 and placing their entire bankroll on Red or Black in roulette. They have a 50/50 chance of doubling up. And them using that $100 without any outragous requirements.

The OP followed the rules. I don't care what Max says, the casino is wrong here. Even Rob stated he thought it was okay to play Video Poker. To the OP: If you haven't started to wager, the returned funds yet. Get your deposit back and the hell with these juke junks. They aren't worth it. I've went back to playing Texas Hold'em and doing really good the last couple of days.

To make one wager silly amounts on $50 is robbery. The odds are already in their favor and then they want you to jump thru hoops over $50. If I deposit another $ with Inetbet it will be a cold day on the SUN! Accredit or Not, Wrong is Wrong! You can take it or let it alone.

[thelawnet]

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.

This offer says:


"Offers do not apply to Craps, Roulette, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play"

Compare that with

"Craps, Roulette, Sic Bo, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play"

All of the games excluded from the player's promotion were already excluded by the normal rules.

So the reasonable assumption is that Sic Bo and non-multi-hand video poker WERE allowed.

Otherwise what's the point of listing these excluded games at all, when they are ALL already banned?

Basically, they f***ed up, misled the player, and should pay-up.

[Jasminebed]

Well, at least Inetbet returned the deposit and bonus to the player's account. Perhaps the OP would like to request the bonus be removed so he can play the games he enjoys without restrictions.