Palace Group Rules Shenanigans

[hakapuku]

The point is that I'm fed up with threads being hijacked, that's all. This thread is about this player's issue, and the issue with these terms and conditions. If it turns into yet another eCOGRA bash then this thread has no relevency to the casinos that publish this term.

As an administrator, I am asking merely to remain focused that's all.

This is an old term by the way, it's been there for some time and as far as I know, this is the first time this has been a problem.

In fact, we asked Fortune Lounge to look at this term some time ago:

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...ggestions.html

sdaddy came up with an excellent solution:



This was over a year ago, and only now people are complaining about it?

The reason that ppl did not talk about this specific issue is because no casino ,as I remember, ever did implement this rule in this way. When Fortune Lounge has introduced this "irregular zero margin bla bla bla" BS ,there were some guys here on casinomeister who pointed out that the rule of the "bet consisting of the majority of the balance and bonus" can be used in an absurd manner. But fortunately this was never used by the casino. Probably the financial crisis made some casinos to take a fresh look at their rules and to use it in any way that will help them to stay profitable. Just disgusting!

[doomed4ever]

Think we are missing a big point here Terms or no terms.
The casino emailed him - gave him the congrats and even offered 20% bonus for any portion of the winnings that he decided to keep in his account. At No time do they mention he has not going to get paid. The email should have made it clear they were not going to pay him because of (crap) terms but instead they took a gamble hoping he would play more. When it turned out he wanted his winnings they dive under the cover of the terms and pulled this stunt not to pay him. So you get an email saying well done and we will give 20% of any funds you dont withdraw and then they change their mind. 100% rouge in my opinion. Makes me so mad!!! Vote with thy wallet! Nuff said

[deltoid]

Think we are missing a big point here Terms or no terms.
The casino emailed him - gave him the congrats and even offered 20% bonus for any portion of the winnings that he decided to keep in his account. At No time do they mention he has not going to get paid. The email should have made it clear they were not going to pay him because of (crap) terms but instead they took a gamble hoping he would play more. When it turned out he wanted his winnings they dive under the cover of the terms and pulled this stunt not to pay him. So you get an email saying well done and we will give 20% of any funds you dont withdraw and then they change their mind. 100% rouge in my opinion. Makes me so mad!!! Vote with thy wallet! Nuff said

I bet that those emails are automated. But interesting point, and again goes to show how their terms are structured so that regardless of what the player does, the casino can nullify the player's wins at their discretion!

[spiderlegz]

A bit OT but found this gem in their T&Cs:

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.



And on the FL terms, they never changed them. It was just "damage control" on their part. But even they never applied the T&Cs in such a way that Spin Palace now did.

Edit: The term they used to rip the player isnt in the Finnish T&Cs. Wonder what would have happened if I had been the OP?

[lots0]

Think we are missing a big point here Terms or no terms.
The casino emailed him - gave him the congrats and even offered 20% bonus for any portion of the winnings that he decided to keep in his account. At No time do they mention he has not going to get paid. The email should have made it clear they were not going to pay him because of (crap) terms but instead they took a gamble hoping he would play more. When it turned out he wanted his winnings they dive under the cover of the terms and pulled this stunt not to pay him. So you get an email saying well done and we will give 20% of any funds you dont withdraw and then they change their mind. 100% rouge in my opinion. Makes me so mad!!! Vote with thy wallet! Nuff said

The casino T&C's also state something along the lines that play will be reviewed before a cash out is finalized. So the email really means nothing.

[Casinomeister]

Ouh my God! This is absolute nonsense from the casino and ecogra.

Like I mentioned before - derail the thread and you'll wish you didn't.

...It makes no any sense at all! No need to say that this is one more (and new) dirty trick of internet casino industry against the gamblers' community.

Reread their terms and conditions. It does make sense from their perspective. Instead of voiding the player's winnings because they "don't like the way you play", they are actually telling you how not to play. If you play like this, you can be sure they will scrutinize your account and decide whether or not they want you as a player - and they can void your winnings as well.

...That means that there is only one reason for this term - that they LIKE to have this term just the way it is worded, so that they can void as MANY wins as possible. That we are just hearing about it affecting players doesn't mean much - the fact is, most players online don't read, let alone write, in any forums. (This explains the continued existence of scum like Virtual Group)

Nope, I disagree. The reason that the Virtual group exists is because of bonus hunters. They will take their chances with these casinos hoping to get paid if they win. In most cases, they lose their deposits because of ridiculous play through requirements. Most players are well read and are aware of player forums such as this.

The reason why this term exists is to protect the casino from specific ways in which some advantage players choose to play. Is it fair? The jury is still out on this one but I'm inclined to say no since there is room for the casino to use this against players. The question is: where is the line drawn to be fair for both sides of the equation?

[deltoid]

The reason why this term exists is to protect the casino from specific ways in which some advantage players choose to play. Is it fair? The jury is still out on this one but I'm inclined to say no since there is room for the casino to use this against players. The question is: where is the line drawn to be fair for both sides of the equation?

Galaxiworld drew that line and gives the players, and casino, a fair T&C. Simple as that.

[gingeanth89]

The bonus you took was this a opening account bonus or one you applied for?

Yes, this was an opening account/new player bonus. I accepted this in good faith from a site which was one among many I could have picked from the list of CM accredited casinos.

[gingeanth89]

The reason why this term exists is to protect the casino from specific ways in which some advantage players choose to play. Is it fair? The jury is still out on this one but I'm inclined to say no since there is room for the casino to use this against players. The question is: where is the line drawn to be fair for both sides of the equation?

I'm sure when the rule was written, the idea was to stop players using more than 50% of their starting balance to prevent bonus abuse. It's just being misused here to avoid a payout - are times really that hard for the Palace Group?

Who is it at eCogra that decides if a casino is fair or not? Who at Casinomeister.com makes the decisions before putting casinos on the accredited list? To both I think it's true to say that the people have spoken. Everyone is in agreement that the casino has not acted fairly here. The whole Palace group should have their eCogra seal taken off them and they should be rogued here. Either that or they should apologize, pay me and sort their rules out. The casino mentioned earlier looks like they nailed the idea of this rule to me.

[suzy1975]

Pure bonus abuse. By the CASINO.

So let's say you're playing $5 video poker and you lose everything, down to your last $5. Well, guess what, you win a royal flush on your last bet! OHHH too bad, you were betting more than 50% or more of your balance for the last two bets, we get to keep your money! haha!

Unbelievable, completely scum behavior. I don't care if it's in their terms and conditions, they could write you must be wearing a blue hat in order to be eligible to win, it's a complete rip off and this is theft, out right. JUST IMAGINE if this guy had lost everything on his last bet, which was more than likely. Would the casino have refunded his $150??? NO. It's win-win-win for the casino.

well done for stealing the Meisters blue hat saying from the playtech Jackpot winner.....come on make up your own ....i mean they could for instance say you must be wearing lacey knickers lol.......