Palace Group Rules Shenanigans

[Casinomeister]

This whole thing has unfortunately damaged my faith to the Accredited List on this site. I have signed on to a lot of accredited casinos without any doubt or hesitations because I have felt that Casinomeisters recommendations would ensure me not having any unpleasant surprises, for example terms and conditions that can be interpreted different, slow payouts, unethical behavior etc. It has saved me from timeconsuming searches on the internet or reading 3 pages of terms and conditions. I have been very grateful for that and told all my friends about this, but after Spin Palace remaining on the Accredited list my 100% trust in the list disappeared.

Sorry that you have lost all faith, but if you would read my comments carefully you'll probably understand that most casinos have these terms in place. We trust that the managers apply these fairly, just like the casinos expect you to play fairly.

[spiderlegz]

So, where do we go from here? Does the Casinomeister membership have any helpful suggestions or constructive criticisms, or are we just going to continue the tired mantra of "pay up or rogue 'em"?

An ideal situation would be that the licensing jurisdictions would treat players as consumers (thats what we are) and would decide are/were the terms fair to the consumer.

I think most countries in the civilized world have some sort of consumer agency with has outlined some act of consumer protection. One among the many reasons that the consumer doesnt have to be a lawyer to fully understand all the terms etc.

In this case Malta has an Consumer Affairs Act that most probably would deem the term in question as unfair. What I dont know is if that applies to players playing at casinos licensed in Malta.

But I think this is something that the majority of the players and webmasters have hoped and waited for years only to be disappointed (once again) when the licensing jurisdictions just seems to be interested in raking in the fees.

Edit: not particulary just about this case of unfair terms. Just some random toughts.

[deucebag]

These are top notch casinos - I'm sure we can all agree to that. Do we agree to allow them to use their "discretion"? Yes we do when we accept their offers. Would the OP have run into the same problem at one of these casinos? Good chance that he would have.

Each one of these terms could be "abused" by a manager having a bad day. Each one of these could be considered unfair. We trust that these casinos treat us fairly and not use these arbitrarily. That is the crux of this issue.

It is true that most casinos have an "FU" clause in their terms, but very few use it to confiscate winnings merely based on the strategy of play. It takes more than that. If the casinos above had done so, we would've heard about it.

What Spin Palace has done is WAY beyond what is acceptable and normal practice for an online casino.

[KasinoKing]

Right, I'm not defending the casino here because I think they are definitely in the wrong and should pay the player 100% of his winnings.
But what I am asking for is a sense of reason & common sense from players reading and commenting on this thread.

Therefore I think these comments are wrong (correct me if not!):

I've certainly lost lots of bonuses there in the past playing large-ish hands.
Palace Group: I'm sorry for unintentionally breaking your terms when I busted out. Will Neteller be alright for my refunds?

Totally agree Rob, and I sure don't see it as blackmail. What I do see it as, is playing fair. Make it virtually impossible to win (well, you can win, but don't cashout) with a bonus....but if you do manage to get lucky, void the winnings. I'd seriously like to know how many players took this bonus, played in the same manner as the OP, but lost rather than got lucky and won.....and had their deposits returned cause they broke the terms?

Does anyone have a full copy of the original terms? Because I seriously doubt that it says if anyone breaks any of their rules they will refund their deposit. If this rule was in place players could try to win in the normal way, but if they looked set to bust out they could deliberately break a rule and legitimately ask for their deposit back. How ludicrous would that be?
(Actually I successfully did this once, but that's another story...)

The terms were IMPOSSIBLE to meet and they knew it... obviously blatant theft by the casino from start to finish.

They shouldn't be sticking to the original term. It wasn't just a crappy and badly written term, it was entirely different in meaning to the one now in place (which he didn't break) and as deltoid says, it was mathematically impossible for the player not to violate if he didn't get lucky right at the start.

Just not true. The rule could only be invoked if a player used his entire remaining balance on a bet, won and went on to complete the full WR. This is extremely unlikely.
Mathematically it is far more likely for him to bust out, so to say it is impossible not to break the rule is far from correct IMO. The fact that this is the first time a situation like this has been posted here despite the rule (apparently) being in place for over a year just shows how rare it is.


As an aside:

a) Play at certain games will contribute a different percentage of the playthrough requirement:
• 100% - all Slots and all Parlor Games
• 8% - all Table Pokers, all Roulettes, all Video/Power Pokers (except All Aces and Jacks or Better), all Blackjacks (except Classic Blackjack) and Casino War
• 0% (excluded games) - Classic Blackjack, all Aces Video/Power Pokers, Jacks or Better Video/Power Pokers, all Baccarats, all Craps, Red Dog, Sic Bo

When the hell did they change that???
Last time I looked it was:
• 100% - all Slots, American Roulette and all Parlor Games
• 50% - all Table Pokers, Red Dog, all Roulettes (except American Roulette), Casino War and Sic Bo
• 10% - all Video/Power Pokers (except All Aces Video/Power Pokers), all Blackjacks (except Classic Blackjack), all Craps and all Baccarats
• 2% - Classic Blackjack and All Aces Video/Power Pokers

Yet another casino group totally loses the plot on bonuses.
Why don't they just make all their bonuses slots only, eliminate the cause of threads like this, lose almost all incentives for new players to sign up and just slowly fade into obsurity....

[Pinababy69]

I thought this was a discussion, not a torch and pitchfork session attacking what we try to accomplish here.

This is a very complex situation that many of you seem not to fathom. What we have are most casinos with what some may call FU clauses (I think I coined that phrase BTW ). These clauses are there to protect the casino against whatever player activity they feel threatens them. These clauses are also used at the casino's discretion, and as soon as you sign up and say "Yes" you have given them the license to use this how they see fit. In other words you trust them to treat you fairly.

Speaking only for myself, it is a discussion....I hope you don't view any of my comments as attacking this site or you personally. We obviously have a major difference of opinion here, but I also know that you're open to civilized debate, or else we wouldn't be here. You also know that I DO respect what you try to accomplish, and what you have accomplished.

I think some here are under the misconception that you are a player advocate, and nothing else. IMO, that is only one of the roles that you play. This site is here to try and create a level playing field for ALL, and that includes the casinos, and I get it. It's not just about players, or in this case, one player....it's about making things better for everyone in the long run.

Regarding the FU clause, you are exactly right. When we sign up at a new casino we trust them to apply their rules in a fair and ethical manner. That probably does happen the majority of the time...otherwise we'd be in this exact same position a whole lot more. But Bryan, you have to admit that players also have an expectation that if a casino is on your accredited list, you are also trusting them to apply their rules in a fair and ethical manner.

I guess this is where the difference of opinion comes in. Do you believe that Spin Palace applied this term fairly? I know that I don't. The term, as it was written at the time, was impossible to abide by. If the term itself is inherently unfair, how can it be applied fairly? Totally illogical to me.

But it wasn't the full moon or other celestial events that caused the casino to yank this guy's winnings, it was his play activity - which was covered in the terms and conditions. The casino made the decision to confiscate his winnings. On the other hand they could have looked the other way and let him cash out hoping he'd come back. Who knows? But this just wasn't an action of some evil casino manager trying to get over on a player. The casino felt it was in their right to act this way.

Okay, so I was being a smartass (again, lol). But it may as well have been due to celestial events, as the term they applied was impossible for the player to adhere to.

Please keep this in perspective: this term has been in place for over a year, and so far not many have had problems with this. Spin Palace has been around for ages - it's not some fly-by-night operation.

Completely agree on all of the above, and that's why I'm so beyond disappointed and shocked. If you read my other posts, I have always held this group in the highest regard. I have no previous issues with them, no bone to pick, I thought they were one of the absolute best that online gaming had to offer and would have gladly sent anyone there to play, no hesitation.

But you're right about a "precedence" that this could set. Who knows what's going through these operators minds - take a look at these:

Which follows a whole series of punishments. I didn't see waterboarding mentioned at all. No worries there

What action? Sounds frightening...

At its own discretion - at all times.

These are top notch casinos - I'm sure we can all agree to that. Do we agree to allow them to use their "discretion"? Yes we do when we accept their offers. Would the OP have run into the same problem at one of these casinos? Good chance that he would have.

Each one of these terms could be "abused" by a manager having a bad day. Each one of these could be considered unfair. We trust that these casinos treat us fairly and not use these arbitrarily. That is the crux of this issue.

I do agree that they are all good casinos. But I'm not sure how you can make the leap to say that the OP would have run into the same problem at all of the above. How can we know? Unless you've asked for their opinion, and they told you they would have acted in the same manner?

Why is it that 32Red have never had an issue similar to this posted on this forum, or any other (that I'm aware of)? Is there anyone who thinks that they haven't been hit by groups of advantage players? Or by one player who played in the same fashion as the OP in this case? Of course they have. The difference is that I would almost guarantee what happens is they pay the player(s), and then tell them that their business is no longer welcome, or simply exclude them from any further promotional mailings. I use 32Red as an example, because it's where I play, and I'm familiar with them. But I just as easily could have used Ladbrokes, Roxy Palace, Intercasino, Virgin...or others. The difference between a good operator and a bad one..is exactly what Bryan has stated....we trust these casinos to apply their terms fairly and not arbitrarily. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm not sure if you're making fun of me in re: setting precedence? The waterboarding comments, etc....I take it as tongue in cheek, and I get the humour. I just wasn't sure if you were making light of me saying this whole issue was setting a precedent that I didn't like.....I'm going to assume you weren't, not your style.

In order to clarify my comment re: precedent, maybe if I give an example of what I was thinking? Let's say the manager of XYZ Casino (who is accredited here and holds an eCOGRA seal) decides to sit down and read through this thread. He says to himself "wow, we had the EXACT same situation here last week. We realized our terms as written weren't clear enough, amended them, and paid the player. We also decided that we just wouldn't offer him any more bonuses, because this isn't the type of player we want". He's thinking this over, and he's wondering why he bothered to pay this player at all. This other casino didn't pay the player, and there were no consequences to deal with, other than a bit of bad publicity for a while. And that always dies down, given enough time. The other casino is still on the list of good casinos, is still being promoted by webmasters in general, and still has their eCOGRA seal.

The point I'm trying to make is how you can list a casino that arbitrarily confiscates winnings, alongside those casinos that don't? And what message does it send out to the good guys, who try day in and day out, to do the right thing, treat the players fairly, and act in an honourable fashion?

All those examples you list just highlight the point I made above. By allowing Spin Palace to do this, it sends the message that it's okay to invoke those FU clauses at will....and just look at how many of them there are. Even the good guys have them.

Did the casino use this arbitrarily - without reason? I'm inclined to think not.

This is the sticking point isn't it? You think they didn't, I 100% think they did.

If ANYONE, and I mean anyone, can give me one reasonable scenario in which the OP could have played this bonus (and won) and NOT broken the term in question (short of grinding the whole thing out on small slot bets and getting lucky very early), I will shut up. You can list games, or a pattern of play, whatever. Tell me how he should have played it to adhere to the term of not betting the majority of his balance at one time. When his balance was down to $1 or less, how could he have avoided breaking the term? He couldn't, impossible. Obviously, if he got lucky early in his session, we wouldn't be here. It's when his balance starts to dwindle, that the term really comes into play. So after he lost his first 4(?) bets, what should he have done to ensure adherence to the T&C's?

Which leads us to the question of......if he had lost that last bet, would Spin Palace have sent his original $150 deposit back to him for breaking their impossible term? We all know the answer to that.

So, where do we go from here? Does the Casinomeister membership have any helpful suggestions or constructive criticisms, or are we just going to continue the tired mantra of "pay up or rogue 'em"?

That's a fair question Bryan, and one that deserves answers. I don't have any quickfixes this second, but I will think about it...seriously think about it.

I always take heat for my opinion, especially when members breeze through my comments and fail to understand them. Many people speed-read the thread and then jump in with a "rogue" comment. That's par for the course, ain't it?

Pet peeve here as well, people who don't read the whole thing. I've been guilty of skimming in the past as well, but I wouldn't jump into a thread like this, without having read it through. But yeah, you're right, and I bite my tongue and sit on my fingers sometimes.

As for eCOGRA - this is my site, not eCOGRA's. If the OP felt that his case was treated unfairly or incorrectly, he could have rebutted the decision. I don't think he did anything, he just came over here.

Actually the OP posted that he did appeal eCOGRA's decision, which is part of the reason why I mentioned them. I realize that your sites, and goals, are independent of each other. I've written Andrew to express my feelings, and will leave it at that.

So back to the point, if any of these casinos had exercised the same "discretion" as Spin Palace did and withheld the OP's winnings, would this have been considered unfair?

How can we ensure that this does not happen again?

In reply to the first paragraph, yes absolutely. As big a supporter as I am of 32Red, and the way they conduct themselves...if they pulled this, I'd be writing them asking wtf are they doing? And I'd be contributing my thoughts to that thread as well. I know that, and so do they. Fair is fair.

Like I said above, a good question....and I hope that maybe we can find some answers. I really do. I don't enjoy threads like this, especially about casinos that I held in such high regard.

[Pinababy69]

Why don't they just make all their bonuses slots only, eliminate the cause of threads like this, lose almost all incentives for new players to sign up and just slowly fade into obsurity....

Had to comment on that KK...I couldn't agree more. I've been thinking that for the longest time now. It's obvious by the terms they write and apply, that they don't really want players signing up and playing any of the games with the lowest house advantage, so why not just disallow it completely?

Just not true. The rule could only be invoked if a player used his entire remaining balance on a bet, won and went on to complete the full WR. This is extremely unlikely.

Mathematically it is far more likely for him to bust out, so to say it is impossible not to break the rule is far from correct IMO. The fact that this is the first time a situation like this has been posted here despite the rule (apparently) being in place for over a year just shows how rare it is.

That's the whole point though isn't it? The rule could only be invoked if the player won and met WR. It is in his winning, that it is impossible to not break that term.

[RobWin]

[quote]

I thought this was a discussion, not a torch and pitchfork session attacking what we try to accomplish here.

What you guys do manage to accomplish here is utterly amazing most of the time and most peeps here look up to you guys as "mentors and casino guru gods of sort", especially you Bryan.

They take your word on a casino being "Accredited" as the last word of the gospel that will be preached on the subject casino. If you say it's good to go then that is all they need to hear, in their mind "why should I read the General T's & C's when the Meister has already accredited them and thus stamped his seal of approval on them. I don't think you actually realize how much weight and influence you actually propel to the online casino player community. Most peeps are in total awe of you here and what you have managed to accomplish over the years.

Go ahead and give yourself a big ole pat on the back right now, you certainly deserve it my friend.

This is a very complex situation that many of you seem not to fathom. What we have are most casinos with what some may call FU clauses (I think I coined that phrase BTW ). These clauses are there to protect the casino against whatever player activity they feel threatens them. These clauses are also used at the casino's discretion, and as soon as you sign up and say "Yes" you have given them the license to use this how they see fit. In other words you trust them to treat you fairly.

I also think that is what the OP counted on here as well from an "Accredited Casino", and further the membership here as well, which judging by this entire thread does not believe to be the case here, thus the outpouring of discontent.

But it wasn't the full moon or other celestial events that caused the casino to yank this guy's winnings, it was his play activity - which was covered in the terms and conditions. The casino made the decision to confiscate his winnings. On the other hand they could have looked the other way and let him cash out hoping he'd come back. Who knows? But this just wasn't an action of some evil casino manager trying to get over on a player. The casino felt it was in their right to act this way.

You are most likely right but it was also not what the player community would and does judge as the correct action of an "Accredited Casino" either! An "Accredited Casino" listed here at Casinomeister should be above this type of behavior, action, imposing actions, etc. etc., whatever you want to call it. An "Accredited Casino" is better that this! You or me neither one could ever imagine 32Red trying to pull off some BS such as this because 32Red is "Truly Worthy" of the "Accredited List".

Your "Accredited Casino List" carries a hell of a lot of weight and influence in the online gaming world my friend, more than I think you realize. The Casinos that make that list should be as damn near flawless and as close to running a perfect operation as is possible in the realm of actuality.

Please keep this in perspective: this term has been in place for over a year, and so far not many have had problems with this. Spin Palace has been around for ages - it's not some fly-by-night operation.

Yes you are correct that they have been around for ages and when I used to play there they treated me well but things change, people change, management may change or not but I don't believe they would have pulled this stunt back in their early days...do you? This action reminds most here of the way a Virtual Casino" would act...like a fly-by-night.

Would the OP have run into the same problem at one of these casinos? Good chance that he would have.

Possibly, but add 32Red and 3Dice to that list and ask yourself the same question and if you cannot answer it with absolute certainty and conviction then I think we may have a problem here Houston. Could you actually imagine Pat H. or Enzo letting this thread get to the point it has now gotten to and spread thru-out the search engines as it now has without at least trying to settle this with the OP by at the very least trying to meet him halfway on this, I couldn't.

So, where do we go from here? Does the Casinomeister membership have any helpful suggestions or constructive criticisms, or are we just going to continue the tired mantra of "pay up or rogue 'em"?

Well, without patting my own self on the back here, Yes..I did make a damn good suggestion a few pages back and a way for the casino to possibly save face and put this issue to rest, but this "Accredited Casino" will not even bother to try and amend their ways here or at the very least take part in this thread...great way for an "Accredited Casino" to act here IMO...

So back to the point, if any of these casinos had exercised the same "discretion" as Spin Palace did and withheld the OP's winnings, would this have been considered unfair?

Absolutely, if a casino truly respects the "Accredited" listing that it receives here then it will also remove any ambiguous terms as these.

How can we ensure that this does not happen again?

Make damn sure the Casino in question fully understands what it truly means to be listed here on the "Accredited Casino List" and never again take advantage of players by adding bogus and ambiguous T's and C's as these we have discussed in this thread.

[chad0x]

As for eCOGRA - this is my site, not eCOGRA's. If the OP felt that his case was treated unfairly or incorrectly, he could have rebutted the decision. I don't think he did anything, he just came over here.

I'm sure the OP mentioned that he had complained to eCogra and then complained again when he got their first reply.

So back to the point, if any of these casinos had exercised the same "discretion" as Spin Palace did and withheld the OP's winnings, would this have been considered unfair?

Would 32red ever use their discretion this way? No. That's why they are on your casino accredited list. Did Spin Palace act fairly? No. They should not be on your accredited list.

How can we ensure that this does not happen again?

Kick casinos off the accredited list if they start pulling this crap. That list is worth a ton of money to each and every casino on it.

[chuchu59]

Nothing more to say on this topic though I would think that we now have an "A list of accredited casinos' headed by 32RED and a "B list of accredited casinos" which includes you know-who.

[zebedy]

Wow this thread has over 7800 views thats over 500 more than when i looked at it this morning,
it seems most people think the casino is wrong on this including me,
you would think that spin palace would want to come to some sort of compromise, the longer this goes on the more damage they will incur ,