Resolved iNetBet has confiscated my winnings!

[Mario77]

Here's the story:

At 31th October I deposited $50 to iNetBet Casino to receive the $50 Halloween bonus. The terms at the promotion page said this: "Offers do not apply to Craps, Roulette, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play." So, I decided to play single-hand video poker and won $375, so my balance become $475 ($50 deposit + $50 bonus + $375 winnings).

After this they voided my winnings and said that video poker is an excluded game. However, the terms at the promotion page didn't mention single-hand video poker as excluded game, just multi-hand.

When I informed them about this, they have changed the promotion page and added video poker to the excluded games' list. However, at the time of my deposit the page didn't mention single-hand video poker as excluded.

The real shock was that they denied that they changed anything!! However, I made screenshots before they changed the page, and also Google Cache still have the old version, here is the link:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

At the top of the page it says this: "It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 31 Oct 2008 21:22:27 GMT." This proves that at 31th October there was no mention of single-hand video poker, just multi-hand. This is also an evidence that it is not true that they have not changed anything.

The problem is that they keep saying that all video poker is excluded but it is a fact that at the time of my deposit it was not excluded, according to the terms and conditions section at the Halloween promotion page.

They also sent me the link to the general promotion terms which say that video poker is excluded, unless otherwise stated. However, the Halloween promotion had different terms, the playthrough requirement and the list of excluded games were different, i.e. "otherwise stated".

I would like to hear your opinions about this issue.

Bryan's detailed INetBet review is here.

 

[Pinababy69]

I'm not a Video Poker player....but even so, Multi Hand and Single Hand are NOT the same thing, that much I do know. They most definitely listed ONLY multi-hand VP in their exclusions. If they wanted to exclude single hand as well, they should have worded it as "all variants of Video Poker", not just Multi Hand.

Your case seems pretty clear cut to me Mario, I think you should be paid.

Have you PM'd Emily Hanson, the Inetbet manager? If you go to the top of the forum, you'll see a link that says I-Gaming Forum Reps. Click on that and scroll down to Emily's name, and send her a PM. I would like to hear Inetbet's take on this. But it does seem pretty simple to me. They made a mistake in their T and C's, and that's not your fault and should not have your winnings voided.

Just for future reference Mario, any time you take a bonus, it's always a good idea to double check what is and isn't allowed (through support), and what the WR are, and get it in writing. You shouldn't HAVE to do that, but because of all the issues that arise from bonuses, it's generally just a smart move.

 

[Mario77]

It may seem simple to you but the fact is that during the last 4 weeks I tried to solve this privately with no result. It is my final desperation that I write here.

I have not PM'd Emily but I sent numerous e-mails to their support and I also sent a Pitch-A-Bitch, the casino was contacted by Max, but the result was that the general promotion rules exclude video poker and even if video poker is missing from that promotion's excluded games list, it doesn't mean that it is allowed.

However I think that if a promotion has a different list of excluded games that means that it is "otherwise stated".

You are right that it is good to ask the support what is allowed and what is not, but in this case it was clear to me that single-hand video poker is not excluded and I didn't think that I will have this kind of problem at an accredited casino. Also it was a shock that they denied that they changed the page.

 

[Pinababy69]

I also sent a Pitch-A-Bitch, the casino was contacted by Max, but the result was that the general promotion rules exclude video poker and even if video poker is missing from that promotion's excluded games list, it doesn't mean that it is allowed.

So they are saying that the terms listed on THAT page for that promotion, aren't the rules you should refer to when playing that promotion? But that you should refer to their general promo rules?

Max, can you comment at all on this, and what your feeling is on that? Shouldn't a casino be held to the promotion specific terms that they include on the page where the promotion details are? It is only natural that anyone claiming that particular promotion would read the rules for that promotion, and abide by them. Why would a player say "hmmmm, okay here are the terms for this promo, but maybe I'd better go and dig up their general rules, to see if they differ"?

Sorry Inetbet, but you got this one wrong....very, very wrong. And not what I expect from you guys at all. I'm very disappointed. The player abided by the terms that you wrote for that promotion. It is not his fault that you made an error and forgot to include single hand video poker in those terms. He played a game that was NOT excluded from THAT promotion, he won, he should be paid, period. Next time have someone proof read the terms for specific promotions prior to posting them on your website.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Terms and conditions:


With trick or treat coupons players must adhere to all of our rules and regulations. Offers start at 12:00am October 31st and expire 11:59pm, November 2nd 2008. One bonus per player / household (location) and computer. Match bonuses will be added to a players account on redemption. All bonuses must be wagered 15x before cash out can be made, unless otherwise stated. All deposit AND wagering must take place within the allotted time of promotion. Minimum deposits and Maximum Bonuses apply as above. Offers do not apply to Craps, Roulette, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play. Please note players are unable to use any bonus monies in their Bingo accounts prior to all wagering requirements being met. With game specific bonuses, monies can only be used on given game. Any play / winnings gained on excluded games with monies including a bonus or part thereof will result in all winnings being void. Full wagering requirements must be met prior to cash out. With all winnings due, players may be asked to provide proof of legal age. iNetBet reserves the right to withdraw bonus credit in cases of bonus abuse. Some accounts may not be eligible for bonus coupons due to previous bonus abuse.

Free monies can only be claimed by players who have deposited and played for real money in the last 6 months (since May 1st 2008). Should the coupon be claimed without this being the case no cash out will be permitted. Standard non deposit rules and regulations apply.

Looks like a genuine Google cache link, and it does indeed specify only Multi-Hand Video Poker.

If iNetBet didn't mean this, they made a typo, but should honour what they wrote, not what they MEANT to write.

UNLESS these is something else to this case, and this is indeed the reason for confiscation, then you may PAB, since iNetBet is an accredited casino.

I am pretty shocked at this allegation, especially since the OP has provided some damn good evidence with a Google cached page.

Maybe there were specific terms on the coupon itself, which would override the more general Halloween terms, which themselves override the general "catch all" promotional terms.

It is not necessary to state anything other than "Video Poker", as by default, this means EVERY variety of video poker machine, qualifying it with "multi-hand" does indeed make the exclusion specific to VP machines offering more than one hand per deal.

I had this promo offered, but I have not played at iNetbet since a VERY odd error indeed, where I had a slot say I had a bonus round, but then gave an error whenever I tried to play it off.
To their credit, iNetBet awarded me the average payout of all bonus rounds, rather than simply refunding the bet, but this kind of software malfunction gets me worried - what if a far larger amount were a stake, I am not happy that RTG software can simply make a bet disappear.

I have seen posts of claims that Microgaming does this too, however in those cases it is possible for the casino to retrieve the problem, and there is Playcheck available for the player to inspect.

PS, I have noticed the OP joined this month, and then immediately complained about iNetBet - so certainly NOT an open & shut case, there MAY be more to this.

 

[Pinababy69]

Read his last post Vinyl....this has been ongoing for four weeks, he has already Pitched a Bitch....and posting here is his last resort. Looks to me like he's followed all the rules to the letter.

I may have to stop playing altogether at Inetbet, if they won't reverse this decision. Based on what has been presented, this is as wrong as it gets. Before making a final judgement, I'd like to hear what Max and/or Bryan have to say.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It may seem simple to you but the fact is that during the last 4 weeks I tried to solve this privately with no result. It is my final desperation that I write here.

I have not PM'd Emily but I sent numerous e-mails to their support and I also sent a Pitch-A-Bitch, the casino was contacted by Max, but the result was that the general promotion rules exclude video poker and even if video poker is missing from that promotion's excluded games list, it doesn't mean that it is allowed.

However I think that if a promotion has a different list of excluded games that means that it is "otherwise stated".

You are right that it is good to ask the support what is allowed and what is not, but in this case it was clear to me that single-hand video poker is not excluded and I didn't think that I will have this kind of problem at an accredited casino. Also it was a shock that they denied that they changed the page.

Well, no, "general" rules are OVERRIDDEN by SPECIFIC rules - if the general rules stood, there would be no need for specific rules.

iNetBet need to get their act together and iron out these inconsistencies between the different sets of rules - this creates CONFUSION. There should be ONE PLACE where rules and exclusions are stated, and these linked too. Individual coupons should CLEARLY state ANY differences between their rules, and the general ones, again to avoid this kind of confusion.

The ONLY way to avoid this problem is to play ONLY the RTG slots - but even then, iNetBet has a trap - look for coupons mentioning "classic slots", because even playing the wrong kind of SLOT can cause trouble.

 

[silcnlayc]

Did you meet the WR before withdrawing because they are totally different when playing a card based vs a slot based game in all the bonuses I have read about and since the VP had no T&C's attached to them, this is a very muddy scenrio because this can be a voided transaction...due to the WR for VP IMO.

Most casinos say 10% of any card play will reult in a credit for WR..what is this one since it was not stated? Not all your bets are credited once you play a card game..That is at almost EVERY casino...

Definitely should have checked when there were no wagering credits attached to this one game. That , to me, would have been a red flag due to the other casinos T&C's including Inetbets for VP.

Hopefully it will be resolved....


.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It may seem simple to you but the fact is that during the last 4 weeks I tried to solve this privately with no result. It is my final desperation that I write here.

I have not PM'd Emily but I sent numerous e-mails to their support and I also sent a Pitch-A-Bitch, the casino was contacted by Max, but the result was that the general promotion rules exclude video poker and even if video poker is missing from that promotion's excluded games list, it doesn't mean that it is allowed.

However I think that if a promotion has a different list of excluded games that means that it is "otherwise stated".

You are right that it is good to ask the support what is allowed and what is not, but in this case it was clear to me that single-hand video poker is not excluded and I didn't think that I will have this kind of problem at an accredited casino. Also it was a shock that they denied that they changed the page.

Can you tell us which SPECIFIC coupon on that page you used, there are 4 altogether, plus a non-winning "trick" cauldron? (This MIGHT make a difference, if there were overriding terms on the coupon itself, such as "slots only".)


EDIT:

I have checked them,

FF3XB - $5 free

U8AD8 - 100% SLOTS ONLY - so OVERRIDES the general rules. (If you take this one you CANNOT play ANY game OTHER than SLOTS).

YCJ89 - 100% match, refers to T & C below for game exclusions, thus this would ALLOW the SINGLE HAND variant of VP as stated.

The other cauldron was the "trick"

 

[Pinababy69]

I just pulled up the page as it exists NOW, and Mario is right, they have changed it to include Video Poker. This is what it reads now:

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

And this is how the cached page reads:

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

They absolutely HAVE changed the page and added in Video Poker. And yet they tell Mario that they didn't? Simply unreal. I don't want you to post it Mario, but do you have the email where they denied changing anything on that page?

 

[RobWin]

This is the coupon that Mario used, but you know what is more troubling is the fact that INetBet went back in and changed the terms to add "Video Poker" as an excluded game after the fact !!

 

[Stovetopp]

"After this they voided my winnings and said that video poker is an excluded game. However, the terms at the promotion page didn't mention single-hand video poker as excluded game, just multi-hand"
Lets not complicate the issue by bringing up other means of errors.
INETBET, did acknowledge that winnings were confiscated because vp was played..NO IF's , AND's or BUTT's :=)) This is the issue.

So assuming the OP is honest and the quote above is correct, the burden of proof is now up to INETBET.

ps. Today I sent a letter to a casino quoting the T&C. In the T&C , it lists every game where comps points could be earned and is earned including SOME SLOTS but not all.......
I received a reply from support saying there was an error and that the T&C would be corrected to show that all slots would be included in the comp program. Well I don't consider "support" as management but just some one like myself who has a job to do..They may correct it or not , but until they do I wont deposit a penny ..STRANGELY ENOUGH I AM NOT A SLOT PLAYER IN THE USUAL SENSE..VP is my game

 

[just play]

This boggles my mind.

They confiscated under $500?

I thought it would be in the thousands, but they resort to under $500...lol...that takes the cake!

 

[Mario77]

Did you meet the WR before withdrawing because they are totally different when playing a card based vs a slot based game in all the bonuses I have read about and since the VP had no T&C's attached to them, this is a very muddy scenrio because this can be a voided transaction...due to the WR for VP IMO.

Most casinos say 10% of any card play will reult in a credit for WR..what is this one since it was not stated? Not all your bets are credited once you play a card game..That is at almost EVERY casino...

Yes I met the WR and there is no 10% rule for card games here.

Can you tell us which SPECIFIC coupon on that page you used, there are 4 altogether, plus a non-winning "trick" cauldron? (This MIGHT make a difference, if there were overriding terms on the coupon itself, such as "slots only".)

It was the first cauldron, YCJ89.

They absolutely HAVE changed the page and added in Video Poker. And yet they tell Mario that they didn't? Simply unreal. I don't want you to post it Mario, but do you have the email where they denied changing anything on that page?

Yes, of course I have all of their e-mails. However, it is possible that the support representative was not aware of the change of the webpage so I don't want to use such strong expression that they lied.

 

[RobWin]

Yes I met the WR and there is no 10% rule for card games here.



It was the first cauldron, YCJ89.

Yea, I knew it was, that's why I went ahead and posted that coupon above since I also used the same coupon and I too also played video poker with it but I was not as lucky as you to have made a cashout...but like you, I too thought it was ok and fine to play single line video poker since it was not mentioned in the T's & C's as an excluded game.

 

[Mario77]

Yea, I knew it was, that's why I went ahead and posted that coupon above since I also used the same coupon and I too also played video poker with it but I was not as lucky as you to have made a cashout...but like you, I too thought it was ok and fine to play single line video poker since it was not mentioned in the T's & C's as an excluded game.

Then maybe you were lucky that you were not as lucky as me...

 

[Jasminebed]

Could casinos not just block games that do not apply when playing certain coupons or when a bonus is attached? "Grey" them out, so to speak? Send a pop-up that says "this game is not allowed while playing this bonus"? And INet should allow this player's winnings as he played by their Terms and Conditions for that promotion at the time he signed up to play. Winnings should be returned to the player's account, and if he had not already met the WR, extra time should be allowed him to do so, since the Trick or Treat Bonus was to be played during a specific timeframe.

Inetbet does not offer Livechat or telephone support, and I emailed them over an hour ago asking about the game restrictions they mentioned on their Turkey bonus coupon...(before reading this thread, BTW) as it was not really clear to me. I choose the $5 ND coupon, and clause pertaining to the ND bonus states

"Any free money given, that does not require a deposit, e.g. a Non-Deposit Coupon, loyalty bonus, comps, VIP bonus, vanity card, manager deposit, competition/tournament prizes, compensation bonus, inconvenience bonus, birthday bonus etc. (unless otherwise stated) will have a maximum cash out of 10x the bonus given e.g. $50 given max cash out = $500. Excess winnings will be removed. Monies must be turned over at least 15x (unless otherwise stated) before any cash out can be made.(amended June 2004)"

. Now I am guessing that means that the same clause that prohibitsCraps, Roulette, Multi-Hand Video Poker, Video Poker, Blackjack/21 variants or Baccarat play. But I don't want to wait over an hour for a response either. And I'm not sure about Bonus Bingo...is that considered a Bingo Room? They talk about bonus monies not being able to be used in a player's Bingo account.

And they truly do need someone to proof read their stuff. The offer still refers to "Trick or Treat" bonuses in the first line.

 

[RobWin]

Could casinos not just block games that do not apply when playing certain coupons or when a bonus is attached? "Grey" them out, so to speak? Send a pop-up that says "this game is not allowed while playing this bonus"?

Yes they can...3Dice does this now with their tournaments...

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yea, I knew it was, that's why I went ahead and posted that coupon above since I also used the same coupon and I too also played video poker with it but I was not as lucky as you to have made a cashout...but like you, I too thought it was ok and fine to play single line video poker since it was not mentioned in the T's & C's as an excluded game.

Well, ask for YOUR "winnings" to be confiscated & deposit returned.

 

[RobWin]

Well, ask for YOUR "winnings" to be confiscated & deposit returned.

LOL, didn't have any 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

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

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

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

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.

 

[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:

Expired Image

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

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

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.

 

[Mario77]

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".

But it was not simply "repetaing" the general terms, it were different terms specific to the Halloween promo that should override the general terms.

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.

Yes, the winnings didn't become withdrawable when I completed the WR, then I contacted support and then they confiscated my winnings.

This in itself would clearly show VP was excluded.

After my play and not before my play.

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.

But since the casino is the one who write the terms, it is their responsibility to make it clear and unambiguous. If, because of their fault, it can be interpreted in more than one ways, I think the fair approach is to decide in favor of the player who played in good faith.

And no, they never admitted to me that their terms were not clear and that they updated the page.

Quotation from one of their e-mails:
"We have changed no rules, they have been the same".

Quotation from another e-mail:
"As far as we are aware no changes have been made to this promotion"

However, Google cache and the screenshots prove the change.

It's OK that you agree that the terms were not totally clear but the casino never agreed on this.

 

[1819]

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:

Expired Image

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)

your explanation and handling of this situation is garbage.. if you are going to "default" back to the original t&c's then why print any terms on any individual coupons? i myself have played at inet for years and am very aware of the t&c's but also have noticed many confusing coupons over the years. a glance at this coupon(which did not state vp was not allowed) would lead me to believe it was. why have to read the coupon and then go and read the casino t c's again before claiming? makes no sense. one could also verify with live chat before claiming...oh that's right no live chat. not paying this player is wrong and an insult....

 

[maxd]

But since the casino is the one who write the terms, it is their responsibility to make it clear and unambiguous.

Within reason, sure. And I would say that within reason you share some responsibility in this too. You knew that VP was normally excluded. 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. It turns out that was the case and AFAIC some measure of responsibility for that result falls in your lap.

Personally I don't buy this "the man who makes the offer must protect the person who accepts the offer from anything they might do to harm themselves" stuff. To use the McDonald's case as an example, if the coffee is too hot then be careful with it. Don't, for instance, pour it on yourself, or use it in your gas tank, or bathe your hamster in it, etc etc. Ok, I'm off into the loony part of the bin here but you get my drift.

It's OK that you agree that the terms were not totally clear ...

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.

 

[1819]

i know we all love inet here at casinomeister but let's be real. they were wrong. very simple. they were wrong. it is not hard to write "normal t&c's apply" on a coupon. if you go out of your way to print game exclusions on a coupon you should be damn sure they are correct. they did not do that. did they do it on purpose? of course not. they made a mistake though and should be held accountable.

 

[LaurieJim]

taking a bonus when making a deposit = nightmare to me, coupons and t/c and w/r, you almost need to be a lawyer to understand them sometimes ,i would rather play on my own money, on my own terms and if i should be so lucky as to cash out, then i know i have no worries, it was won fair and square on MY terms, not the casino's..................laurie

 

[Upset]

Within reason, sure. And I would say that within reason you share some responsibility in this too. You knew that VP was normally excluded. 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. It turns out that was the case and AFAIC some measure of responsibility for that result falls in your lap.

How does one suppose to assume? The terms did not include single hand video poker. I have played at several Playtech casinos in the past. Where multihand Video poker wasnt allow. But single was. The bottom line, MAX, is the casino failed to include single hand video poker in their terms. Clear and Simple. To assume does not cut it! I'm going to cut the chase and say what i believe some members would like to say but don't.

I find it bias that Inetbet is an affiliate here. So in terms Inetbet pays part of your salary. How can you be an honest broker for both parties? Remember No man can serve 2 masters. I know you have a history of getting people their money. But you also have a history of siding with the casinos. When they are clearly wrong. If I worked for the people. By no means would i accept monies from their competition. Much less have a slot (named after me) in honor of my work for the competition. We as the people can offer you nothing. The casinos offer you a check at the end of the month. I am nothing saying your services is not wanted. Its just not a true broker on behalf of people you suppose to represent. Especially, when you find some of them guilty and close their account here. And we can't get their closing aruments.

 

[gerilege]

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:

Expired Image

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)

With the same logic you could confiscate all winnings on the above coupon. As Zoozie wrote earlier,if general T&Cs apply, and override specific promo terms, then VP would not be allowed on a VP coupon like above, because of the general T&C. I don't feel that your argument is defenseble, and this approach is something I would not expect from Inetbet.

 

[silcnlayc]

Yes, the winnings didn't become withdrawable when I completed the WR, then I contacted support and then they confiscated my winnings.

So you did NOT meet the WR...it was telling you that...

Ok, we all know NOT to try and withdraw when the money is sitting under non withdrawlable don't we? Why didn't the player ask for his money back at this point instead of arguing over winnings that could NOT be WITHDRAWN because it was sitting there in the box where it tells you, you still have requirements to meet. Everyone knows this.

He tried to withdraw funds that were non withdrawable then proceeded to complain about it. and when the casino returned his money and bonus to play the correct games for the coupon he balked knowing what games he had to play to make it viable, then came here and complained.

Someone stated there was more to this story because of when this players signed up..and there was..

You CANNOT withdraw funds until they are transferred into the real money account on the banking page and he tried to bypass this.

There has been discussions on this system many many times and now they fixed it to not allow funds to be withdrawn if the wr are not met and they (the casino) is still wrong by the players terms....when will they ever get it right by players terms and to where the player is happy? The players demanded this change and it is in place for players not to make a mistake of withdrawing to early.

I agree the benefit of doubt should go to the player and can see both sides of this disagreement because I too was in this same positon a long time ago before they changed the withdrawable boxes on the banking page for the benefit of the player, but the money was not in the right account when he tried to withdraw by his own words...and they gave the money back to him to play correctly...and once again...that was a courtesy by the casino who did not have to do it....



.

 

[Upset]

So you did NOT meet the WR...it was telling you that...

Ok, we all know NOT to try and withdraw when the money is sitting under non withdrawlable don't we? Why didn't the player ask for his money back at this point instead of arguing over winnings that could NOT be WITHDRAWN because it was sitting there in the box where it tells you, you still have requirements to meet. Everyone knows this.

He tried to withdraw funds that were non withdrawable then proceeded to complain about it. and when the casino returned his money and bonus to play the correct games for the coupon he balked knowing what games he had to play to make it viable, then came here and complained.

We know that. The point is. Either the wagering should have counted because it wasnt written in the term. Even though they included it in the bonus code itself. Or they should have given him his full balance back to finish wagering. Instead of taken his winnings from him.

 

[silcnlayc]

Or they should have given him his full balance back to finish wagering. Instead of taken his winnings from him

They did...

Inebet: The players deposit and bonus were returned to their account.

To play the correct games...