iNetBet has confiscated my winnings!

[silcnlayc]

So may I ask, what was the final result?

I think I missed it somewhere....too lazy to read through all the replies...

Did the casino stand on their decision? Just curious...

[Mario77]

The OP explained the two accounts satisfactorily. He's back in.

Thank you Bryan.

You assumed, I would say incorrectly, that it was not excluded in this case. In my view you also assumed some responsibility for the consequences of your actions, namely that your assumption about VP might be wrong and your VP might not count toward the WR.

I was sure that VP is allowed so I didn't assume that I might be wrong. If I had thought that maybe VP is not okay, I wouldn't have played it. It is not worth the trouble.

Ah, but that's not what I said. I said the Terms "could have been clearer". My chair could be more comfortable. My cheese could be cheesier. The moon could be more moon like. "Could" does not imply a failure of the thing to be the thing, it just says that more was possible. That is not a criticism, it is an observation, and thus no fault is necessarily implied.

I understand that "could have been clearer" doesn't mean that it is not clear. But I used the "totally clear" expression. If something "can be clearer" then it might be clear but it can't be "totally clear".

But not this is my point. My point is that while you admitted that the page was changed, the casino never admitted this to me.

Even if the result was not good for me, I appreciate that you investigated the issue and explained the situation to me. But I can't say the same about the casino's support - they ignored my concerns and instead of giving explanation, they just kept repeating that VP is excluded, and denied that they changed the page.

So you did NOT meet the WR...

I met the WR, but the money was still not withdrawable.

He tried to withdraw funds that were non withdrawable then proceeded to complain about it.

No, I didn't try to withdraw, just went to the cashier when I completed the wagering and then I noticed that the money still appears as non-withdrawable.

So may I ask, what was the final result?

Nothing new. They have not returned my winnings.

[maxd]

... while you admitted that the page was changed, the casino never admitted this to me.

To "admit" something implies the reluctant disclosure of something one might have kept secret which is not applicable to this situation at all.

I had nothing to do with the page in question, never made any claims about it one way or the other, and certainly made no attempt to hide anything about it.

What I did see is evidence that indicated the page _had_ changed and my statements were based on that.

As to the casino's position on this I'm not at all clear as to what has and hasn't happened. I will say this though: if some random Customer Service person said something that later proved to be incorrect then a Customer Service person was incorrect. I don't believe that a conspiracy to defraud can be inferred or implied from such an incident.

Finally, as is standard with most online casinos they reserve the right to to change Terms as they see fit, per the following (see here):

All rules, regulations, and payoffs contained herein are subject to change and revision by the management without prior written notice.

[Mario77]

To "admit" something implies the reluctant disclosure of something one might have kept secret which is not applicable to this situation at all.

I had nothing to do with the page in question, never made any claims about it one way or the other, and certainly made no attempt to hide anything about it.

What I did see is evidence that indicated the page _had_ changed and my statements were based on that.

You're right that "admitting" is not the right expression in your case.

As to the casino's position on this I'm not at all clear as to what has and hasn't happened. I will say this though: if some random Customer Service person said something that later proved to be incorrect then a Customer Service person was incorrect. I don't believe that a conspiracy to defraud can be inferred or implied from such an incident.

I don't have any conspiracy theory - as I mentioned in post #14, it is possible that the support representative was not aware of the change of the webpage. The problem is that after I had presented them the screenshot and Google cache, they just ignored the evidences and still denied the change. It would have been enough to look at these to see that the page was indeed changed, even if they were not aware of the change before that. However, based on their replies, I'm not sure that they have looked at what I sent to them at all.

Of course this complaint is not about you, Max, you have nothing to do with the mistakes of their support.

This can easily be the mistake of just one support person. However, for the player, the support person represents the casino.

[winbig]

"All rules, regulations, and payoffs contained herein are subject to change and revision by the management without prior written notice."

But didn't they apply these terms retroactively?

[maxd]

... I'm not sure that they have looked at what I sent to them at all.

Of course I can't say whether this is or is not true, but I can say that in my experience once a casino has made a decision about a case it does generally take something out of the ordinary to refocus their attention to it.

This can easily be the mistake of just one support person. However, for the player, the support person represents the casino.

Yes, I think that this may well be the case here. In private communications there has been no claims one way or the other.

But didn't they apply these terms retroactively?

Not sure I follow: the terms say they can update things. They (may have) updated things, for clarity I assume. The original interpretation of the Terms remains unchanged. One could argue that they simply made the change to help clarify the situation, not to change the rules of the game as it were.

[vinylweatherman]

"All rules, regulations, and payoffs contained herein are subject to change and revision by the management without prior written notice."

But didn't they apply these terms retroactively?

This seems the case.

I am afraid I have little confidence, because iNetBet have DONE IT AGAIN

They have launched a "Thanksgiving" promo, similarly structured to the former Halloween one, and it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR what the problem is,

The opening line refers to "trick or treat coupons", even though this is the "turkey shoot" thanksgiving promo. Further, they state that all the coupons carry 15x WR, whereas in fact NONE of them do, as EACH ONE has a different WR, between 20x and 25x.

The ONLY damn thing they have got right this time is that they have worded the general exclusions as ..... Multi hand Video Poker, Video Poker.....

I can't accept that it is fair for them to nit-pick the finer points when it comes to confisating winnings because players "should have noticed.....", when they cannot even reach the standard of a competent school student when it comes to checking their work before "handing it in for marking".

One has to wonder what other minor mistakes are around, and they are not so minor if they are resorting to confiscation of winnings.

As far as I am concerned, they peaked a while back, and are now "stale", they will soon vacate my PC in favour of one of the Rushpod venues, more likely after Christmas, once they have Neteller working for both deposits and withdrawals.

[winbig]

Not sure I follow: the terms say they can update things. They (may have) updated things, for clarity I assume. The original interpretation of the Terms remains unchanged. One could argue that they simply made the change to help clarify the situation, not to change the rules of the game as it were.

Max, of course they can update their T&C, I have no problem with that. But, unless there is something else to this case that's not out of the open, I see it as iNetBet changing the T&C after the player started playing. IIRC, the OP even has screenshots of what T&C were in place, for this particular promotion, before they were changed.

The bottom line as I see it is: fine, change the T&C, but honor the T&C that were in place once a player claimed a bonus and played.

[Casinomeister]

This is a real frustrating issue since this may have been solved as a PAB.

The OP had submitted a PAB explaining his problem. Max contacted iNetbet, and the manager pointed to the terms and conditions that are linked to the bonus offer page. It is "assumed" that when one accepts a bonus, he or she agrees to have read ALL terms and conditions. It is stated on the bonus page:

Terms and conditions:

With trick or treat coupons players must adhere to all of our rules and regulations.

This is the first sentence of the T&Cs - and it could be logically assumed that the player had clicked this before going on further and read this in its entirety. This is a logical argument. It also could be argued that the player assumed that the games mentioned in the offer were the ones that could be applied to this, but shouldn't he have read the first link first?

It goes around in a circle, and Max wasn't done with this yet. As soon as he forwarded the initial response from the casino manager to the OP, he received this:

I would like to see other people's opinions on this issue so I plan to start a thread on this, however, first I'd like to solve this privately. So, I'll wait patiently if you say that there is still a small chance that you can convince them to return my winnings, even if they are not "obligated" to do so.

So what the hell is this? This player started this thread right after Max received this. The player derailed the PAB before Max or I could go through the proper chain to have this resolved in a fair and logical manner. Side note: Max never said that he could "convince" the casino to reverse its initial decision, but he was never given a chance to present any debate to the casino's chain of command.

Is this another episode "If I don't get my way, I'm going public now!"?

This is tiresome and makes our job dealing with the PABs here a real pain in the ass. If you can't follow the guidelines of our terms of negotiation, then please don't use our service. As far as I am concerned, this is the player's first and last PAB.

I'm also pulling Max off of this case. From what I have, this was a 50/50 chance of a favorable outcome for the player. But due to the circumstances of the player ignoring our policies here, I will make no attempt to negotiate anything.

Sorry to seem to come down harsh, but it's not a good thing when members abuse our services here. It kind of pisses me off.

[Casinomeister]

Just so everyone is aware how the PAB thingy works, when Max receives a PAB he first contacts the manager. If we/he is not satisfied with the answer, then it goes on to the bossman or operator. If it's still not good to go, then we go further to the licensing agency, software provider, or rogue pit. This issue never got past the first line of defense.