Resolved Palace Group Rules Shenanigans

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by Palace Group

Of course:

I mentioned that we go into detail to check accounts and if it is the remaining balance used for a small bet that is fine.

Those players who have been playing with us for years know we are fair and upfront with what we do.
There are however cases where intentions are deliberate and terms are broken and these are the ones acted upon.

Hopefully this answers your question Spearmaster.

Regards,

The Palace Group

Excuse me for pointing out, then that 30 is 10% of deposit and bonus under the SPIRIT of the terms you were trying to implement - while 30 is 100% of BALANCE and bonus under your flawed terms.

If you were to try and have this enforced in a court of law, I would bet my last dollar they would throw you out of court so fast you wouldn't have time to blink.

I would advise you to reconsider.

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

Hmm, I think that certain games are different. For some games, you HAVE to pay more to get paid. Like casino hold em, three card poker ante + play bet, and some others.

Every brand of casino software will, with $3 in your balance, let you bet $3 on blackjack. But they won't necessarily let you bet $3 on casino hold em. Playtech limits you to 1/3 of your balance, because you NEED the extra cash to get paid.

It's not unreasonable to consider the amount wagered as the sum of ante+play for these purposes on 3 card poker. For blackjack, however, it's definitely only the original bet.

Good point.

I should revise to say "any initial bet, or additional bet which is required to avoid forfeit of any preceding bets" or something of the sort.

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by Palace Group

Of course:

I mentioned that we go into detail to check accounts and if it is the remaining balance used for a small bet that is fine.

Those players who have been playing with us for years know we are fair and upfront with what we do.
There are however cases where intentions are deliberate and terms are broken and these are the ones acted upon.

It's not clear really. The player has a £300 balance. He bets £100. This is ok.

He loses.

He now has a £200 balance. He bets £100. This is not ok. How can it be that the first bet was allowed and the second is not?

How about if he is betting £50 and loses the first 5 bets and wins the 5th? Is this permissible

Or if he bets £25?

Or £10?

Where do you draw the line? You need to explain UP FRONT. Because 'small bet' for Donald Trump is different from 'small bet' for a little old lady with $20 in her wallet.

You're declaring that the player's £30 bet in this case is not a 'small bet' and is not allowable. On what basis? A lot of people consider that a small bet. I would usually bet £50 on table games.

The player bet his remaining balance on a bet that was small - only 1/10 of his original balance - a far cry from the 'majority' referred to in your terms.

[deucebag]

How many players who LOST have been refunded their deposit by this group because they did not play in the proper spirit?

The player in this case would be more likely than not to lose his deposit. Would he then have his deposit returned?

This is a brilliant business plan. Have players deposit, and if they lose -- fine. If they win, return their deposit only.

[spearmaster]

Funnily enough, I have one more point.

As a person placing their last bet with their remaining money breaches the T&Cs, should the casino not be required to refund the deposit and close the account, even when the player LOSES the last bet?

Play fair, Palace Group.

[ternur]

Originally Posted by Palace Group

The problems come in when we look at trends and play and see definite signs that someone is betting a certain way after receiving bonus money which is not in the spirit of fair play and not the reason we give offers and bonuses to our players.

Players who play with us know we are a reputable group who does not need to revert to any underhand tactics. We do however strongly believe that a business needs to protect itself.

Why don't you revise your rules and add restrictions to games you do not want players to play? Since every single game offered favours the house, betting patterns and/or "spirit of play" should not even be an issue. The spirit of play is for the player to win money. Against the odds of casino taking it away from the player.

You run a casino, right? You offer bonuses to attract players because the competition is tough.

Things have gone really strange in regards to online casinos. The business where a casino accepts a wager and pays (if they choose to it seems) if the player is successful.

Any win from accepted bet made should be honoured. No exceptions. If bet size matters, adjust the limits accordingly.

[RobWin]

Originally Posted by Palace Group

Firstly to address a few additional points raised in this thread:
30. Spin Palace Casino reserves the right to pay all Progressive Jackpot winnings in US dollars. The amount to be paid, will be determined by the US Dollar Progressive Jackpot amount on the Progressive Game played, at the time the jackpot was won.
We pay progressives in the currency the player played in. The term does need updating and will be done so accordingly.

The Finnish site will be updated to have the same terms as the rest of our the casino sites. Thank you for pointing these out.

In response to the original post.

We have been targeted and abused by a number of players using certain betting patterns (which for obvious reasons I cannot divulge). We do not take the bets at face value but delve into the actual game play to determine whether someone has transgressed the terms and conditions or not.
The problems come in when we look at trends and play and see definite signs that someone is betting a certain way after receiving bonus money which is not in the spirit of fair play and not the reason we give offers and bonuses to our players.
Our terms do state what we do not allow and if players would like to clarify what they may or may not do prior to claiming and betting they are welcome to contact us.
The 20% bonus offer on the reversal was an error and should not have been sent out. This does not detract that once the withdrawal was submitted and analysed the player did in fact break terms which they agreed to when registering with us.
Players who play with us know we are a reputable group who does not need to revert to any underhand tactics. We do however strongly believe that a business needs to protect itself.

Regards,

The Palace Group

That's it? This is the response and post that everyone has been so anxiously awaiting on here? Come on Palace Group, you guys are better than this, you have been an "Accredited Casino" here for years now. I think myself and the rest of the members here deserve better than this from you guys! At the very least a definitive response to the very issue at hand and not just simply a copy and paste of T's & C's!

[chuchu59]

Correction Palace Group. If you insist on implementing such a ridiculous condition I venture to say 'you were a reputable group.

[WAYLANDER]

Spin Palace

I deposited and claimed a bonus some time back which i completely bust out .

My balance is showing as Zero

So i must of bet 100% of my balance on my final bet

Unknowingly i have broken your T&C's ....

can i have my deposit back ?

WAYLANDER

[pmhcfc]

Originally Posted by chuchu59

Correction Palace Group. If you insist on implementing such a ridiculous condition I venture to say 'you were a reputable group.

Yep.. 'were' is the best word that can be used here....I've just read the whole thread and I just think this guy got lucky and the casino doesn't like it...How much money have they kept in the past from other people who have broken the T & C unknowingly...Suffice to say Spin Palace didn't give their deposits back.

Talk about sour grapes...Is two and half grand really that much money to a casino? See it for what it is, the guy got lucky... PAY THE MAN!