Palace group warning

[oren1976]

I will give 3 example, maybe you have more to add as a reason why these should be avoided at all cost

1. In some of their casino like in Cabaret Club, the important rule of max bet of 30% of bonus allowed, is mentioned only at the general terms, and not at the promotion terms and condition. such a rule is not legitimate even if it is being shown infront of the eyes of the player while he is playing.

Think about a player who won 50,000 in their slots and his winnings are being confiscated applying this specific promotion rule from the general term

2. Prime casino has just added a new rule, if you claim a bonus at prime you can't claim it in Spinpalace, the only problem is that in their casinos, the bonuses are being credited automatically.

Think about a player who intended to play without a bonus but the software credited a bonus at spinpalace he wins 1,000,000 betting in slots and they find 2 reason now not to pay, breach term 1 , you already claimed the bonus at prime, if not they have term 2 30% you exceed and don't worry if all of those were fulfilled by players, dont worry the casino has the winning term number 11.... look reason 3


3. Term 11.



If the Player has not played at the Casino on an individual basis for personal
entertainment only (that is, the Player has played in a professional sense or in concert with
other Player(s) as part of a club, group, etc.)


So they can not pay this player anyway good for them, very bad for the players

avoid avoid avoid

 

[nitro]

These kind of rules were added so that people like you and uungy stop crippling even the slot bonuses for the gamblers - otherwise a massive WR would have to be added at some point of time making the bonus even more unplayable. When the idea catches on it will be good for the players because that's the only way to reverse the current trend and improve the bonus schemes.

 

[oren1976]

I wish u were right, these rules was is and will be implemented to confiscate winnings from all slots players.

I wish you were right!! you will see , and actually the forum are full of the facts I mentioned, legitimate players are not being paid from so called terms and conditions.

I gave a scenario of no pay situation of tons that were won at slots, like the 46,000 but with more meat inside it to confiscate or not to confiscate

I still agree with Clubworld but not with the way they decided to punish the player for violating the terms

 

[nitro]

The reason you try to push it here because it will be your winnings that will be confiscated.

 

[bernynhel]

...2. Prime casino has just added a new rule, if you claim a bonus at prime you can't claim it in Spinpalace, the only problem is that in their casinos, the bonuses are being credited automatically...

Really good point here. If they can confiscate winnings on this item then automatic bonus crediting, site-wide, on multiple-account holders is a total bitch move by The Palace Group.

I can't think of a better reason for yanking a casino group off of an accredited casino list than bonus-baiting.

 

[oren1976]

Nitro, I brought accusation that are accompained by facts.

You say things that are not true and based on no facts

I say, why do you credit bonuses automatically while there are so many traps in the terms not to pay a winner

you say, I am the one who has the interest, the opposite is true, my interest in the community of player interest to avoid them and I bring reasons based on facts with example for you to read, you can be the next not me, if I wasn't here to warn you might have been the next to be screwed by them, I am here to help you and not myself

 

[KasinoKing]

1. In some of their casino like in Cabaret Club, the important rule of max bet of 30% of bonus allowed, is mentioned only at the general terms, and not at the promotion terms and condition.
such a rule is not legitimate even if it is being shown infront of the eyes of the player while he is playing.

Errr.... WHY is it not legitimate?

I wish you were right!! you will see , and actually the forum are full of the facts I mentioned, legitimate players are not being paid from so called terms and conditions.

Well, I haven't seen any such complaints.
Please can you supply links to these posts from players not being paid who have not broken any of the terms & conditions.

KK

 

[winbig]

I still agree with Clubworld but not with the way they decided to punish the player for violating the terms

If any casino decided to let players keep their winnings even though they broke the [clearly outlined] T&C of a particular promotion, they'd be bankrupt in no time.

 

[oren1976]

Casino king, this thread is all about the fact that it is not possible not to break the terms, do you understand ? I can't give you an example, because there is no way you are not breaking the terms, this thread is about that, the casino has the right to do whatever he wants

If prime casino add the bonus to a player who played in spinpalace auto THE CASINO BREAK THE TERMS NOT THE PLAYER



Casinoking, prime casino mention in the terms that you are not allowed to claim a bonus in Prime if you already claim it in Spinpalace, while they still credit the bonus auto in Prime, is this legitimate ?

Is it legitimate to offer a clause of max bet allowed while it is very easy to set the game beforehand to be limited while played with a bonus, and put it only in the general terms, while they do have promotion terms, they have specific promotions terms, why not to put it there ?

Now you want me to find some posts, I will sit on it later today or tomorrow, my memory usually not wrong, but I don't have any specific complaint to bring

But won't u agree with my two facts above

 

[winbig]

Casinoking, prime casino mention in the terms that you are not allowed to claim a bonus in Prime if you already claim it in Spinpalace, while they still credit the bonus auto in Prime, is this legitimate ?

This is indeed shady practice, but if they clearly state the casinos in their group and that you can't claim bonuses at multiple casinos, then I don't see what the fuss is. Bottom line: read through the T&C before you take a bonus. If the bonus is credited automatically, then it's up to the player to contact support and get it removed before they place any bets. On the other hand, if they refuse to remove the automatic bonus, then yes, it's the casino's fault, not the player's.

 

[oren1976]

once the terms mention it is not allowed to claim a bonus in Prime casino if you already played a bonus at Spinpalace and the software credit the bonus AUTO, to me this means one thing:

The casino violated their own terms.

It is very easy to set the software not to credit the bonus auto to those players.

It is very easy to limit the bets in slots for a player who play with bonus to 30% of bonus as a max bet and not to hide it at the General terms while having promotion terms and this term is not there, isn't it a promotion term , then why is it missing ? what do u have to hide ?

There is one answer what they have to hide, the fact they have plenty of reason not to pay you sweet winner

I say play at Palace group only without a bonus leave the bonus for them because they have good reasons not to pay you and they will not pay you, I will bring some complaint links later as promised to KASINOKING

 

[De Beuker]

Eh, I thought Prime was no longer part of the Palace Group?
Prime is on the 'no can do' list here, while the Palace Group casino's are all accredited, right?
So whats that BS of not beeing elegible to claim a bonus at both?

 

[Nifty29]

In my experience with The Palace Group, all ongoing bonuses have to be claimed via an online form which displays all the terms of the promotion.

The only exception would be the sign up bonus, which is what I fear the OP is alluding to here.....and there are many groups that only allow one SUB per group. If a bonus is auto credited, then ask for it to be removed. However, as I said I have always had to request the bonus.

As for the terms....everyone knows that promotion terms are in addition to the general terms. Unless this is the first time you have ever played online (which I doubt), then you would know that.

It is the responsibility of the player to make sure they know the rules before they play.

 

[Jasminebed]

I haven't made any recent deposits at the Palace Group. But I do belong to more than one of their properties. Thank you for bringing this new rule to our attention Oren.

I think that there is arguably some difference between CLAIMING a bonus and having one automatically supplied that would void a win.

The rogue Virtual Group are masters at offering players enough bonuses and freechips to void any potential wins.

I've seen complaints against some bingo sites for similar behaviour.

Caveat emptor. I try to read Terms and Conditions carefully, but I don't go in and read them every time I log into a casino.

 

[oren1976]

Nifty29 "As for the terms....everyone knows that promotion terms are in addition to the general terms. Unless this is the first time you have ever played online (which I doubt), then you would know that."

This issue is not about me, it is about all players including players who play the first time, do you know how much money the Palace group can and probably making by confiscating player winnings according to these evil terms of up to 30% max bet of bonus without limiting the bets inside the software ?

Do you agree with me then, it should be at the promotion terms, and if it is not there, there must be a reason to that, maybe this way they can make more money, did you think about this option ?

Considering their lies which I mention later, won't u agree this possibilty is more than 50% possible ? why not to mention it at the general terms, this pattern is in ALL OF THERI CASINOS



People are scared of extacy much more than they are scared from cigarette and Alcohol while in everyyear statement scientist publish, they state that extacy is less dangerous than most drugs and even cigarette and alchohol

I personally think that Virtual group are much better, way much better nowadays than Palace group.

They have much better bonuses, unlimited and they pay if you don't don't make them really mad, this is not the case with the Palace.

Virtual group pay but slowly, but they pay , unless you really go crazy opening many casinos in their group.

Virtual group don't credit bonuses auto, u have to claim a coupon

Virtual group won't limit your bets in the terms while it is a allowed in the software

Virtual group are not accredited at Casinomeister so I would expect less from them while from the Palace group I do expect.

Prime casino and Palace group, they both liked to lie about the fact they are not connected, remember the complaint about taking the money back from a player after they had paid him, they were considered rogued and Palace group and them, ohh, we are not connetced.

As I said their ugly face is being exposed from all aspects, tell me where I am wrong, sounds crazy, sounds like a stupid barking dog, but everything is based on facts what I say, avoid Palace group Prime group with bonuses

 

[KasinoKing]

KasinoKing, prime casino mention in the terms that you are not allowed to claim a bonus in Prime if you already claim it in Spinpalace, while they still credit the bonus auto in Prime, is this legitimate ?

But won't u agree with my two facts above

OK, I have been to both the Spin Palace & Prime websites to read the T&C's and these are my views;

1. Yes, I 100% agree with you that the 30% maximum bet should definitely be included in the bonus T&Cs.
"Hiding" it in the general terms is not acceptable.
(I do also agree with Nitro though - this term is only there to stop "bonus abusers" doubling up - regular casino players have absolutely nothing to worry about)

2. I am 99.99% sure that the reference at Prime to receiving a bonus from Spin Palace in NOT supposed to be there.
These casinos are linked in some way, but are not financially part of the same group as far as I know.
What I think has happened here, is someone copied the SP terms to use at Prime, but forgot to change "Spin Palace casino" to "Prime casino".
If you look at the Spin Palace term it is identical to Prime's;

9. The Welcome Bonus offer may not be claimed in conjunction with any other promotions currently offered by Spin Palace Casino and is subject to on going review. The casino has the right to change the offer and its terms at any time.

At Prime Casino it is supposed to say;

9. The Welcome Bonus offer may not be claimed in conjunction with any other promotions currently offered by Prime Casino and is subject to on going review. The casino has the right to change the offer and its terms at any time.

It is this rule that I was challenging you to give examples of players losing out from, not the "30% maximum bets" rule.

KK

 

[oren1976]

Kasinoking I think you are right, let's see they change it.

Hoepfully the 30% will be at the promotion terms.

And as for regular gambler not to be worried, I don't agree, they have to be worried, if a bonus player play or a regular gambler play, how would you define who is who ? it is not so easy as you think.

This term should be at the promotion terms and even then it is a problematic term. and I think this kind of term give the casino power to abuse their power, when you give such a power to casino you give them the right to abuse their own terms, and they will do that because they are human beings.

Abuse the terms means, a player come, bet some marginally above this limit only few of his bet and the casino not paying him reserving the right with him, let me guess that when you have such a rule and you are a casino you can abuse this rule .

Reg some complaints , many complaints in the past about them , some of the complaints have been resolved.

I

 

[alfrema7]

People are scared of extacy much more than they are scared from cigarette and Alcohol while in everyyear statement scientist publish, they state that extacy is less dangerous than most drugs and even cigarette and alchohol

I personally think that Virtual group are much better, way much better nowadays than Palace group.

They have much better bonuses, unlimited and they pay if you don't don't make them really mad, this is not the case with the Palace.

Virtual group pay but slowly, but they pay , unless you really go crazy opening many casinos in their group.

Virtual group don't credit bonuses auto, u have to claim a coupon

Virtual group won't limit your bets in the terms while it is a allowed in the software

Virtual group are not accredited at Casinomeister so I would expect less from them while from the Palace group I do expect.

Prime casino and Palace group, they both liked to lie about the fact they are not connected, remember the complaint about taking the money back from a player after they had paid him, they were considered rogued and Palace group and them, ohh, we are not connetced.

As I said their ugly face is being exposed from all aspects, tell me where I am wrong, sounds crazy, sounds like a stupid barking dog, but everything is based on facts what I say, avoid Palace group Prime group with bonuses

agree with you on that. Sometimes funny things happen when a stable always paying casinos like Golden Palace is considered as a rogue at this website and meanwhile the real rogues confiscating hundreds thousands of dollars for the fake reasons- these are considered to be reputable!

 

[Nifty29]

OK, I have been to both the Spin Palace & Prime websites to read the T&C's and these are my views;

1. Yes, I 100% agree with you that the 30% maximum bet should definitely be included in the bonus T&Cs.
"Hiding" it in the general terms is not acceptable.
(I do also agree with Nitro though - this term is only there to stop "bonus abusers" doubling up - regular casino players have absolutely nothing to worry about)

2. I am 99.99% sure that the reference at Prime to receiving a bonus from Spin Palace in NOT supposed to be there.
These casinos are linked in some way, but are not financially part of the same group as far as I know.
What I think has happened here, is someone copied the SP terms to use at Prime, but forgot to change "Spin Palace casino" to "Prime casino".
If you look at the Spin Palace term it is identical to Prime's;

At Prime Casino it is supposed to say;


It is this rule that I was challenging you to give examples of players losing out from, not the "30% maximum bets" rule.

KK

Yes I agree too about the 30% rule being made clearer. However, I would suggest it would only affect a tiny number of players who are wanting to bet their entire balance on roulette before they grind it out on slots....and these are the people we can thank for the WR and hoops we have to jump through these days. I cant see the average player being concerned about that term at all - it certainly wouldnt affect me. The term is not evil, and as I said its the fault of certain people , some who shall remain nameless, who look for every single loophole they can find to exploit what the rest of us are happy to enjoy.

I personally think that Virtual group are much better, way much better nowadays than Palace group.

Sorry but you lost me when you said this....are you serious or taking the mick??

They have much better bonuses, unlimited and they pay if you don't don't make them really mad,

So you think its OK for a casino to decide whether to pay you by how 'mad' you make them? Multiple accounts is against the rules almost everywhere so they are no different from anywhere else.....but the kind of BS excuses this lot have come up with over the years to avoid payment is enough to make you puke.

If you have any sense about you at all, for goodness sake do yourself a favour and stay away from Virtual and the other rogues. The only way to bring them down is to stop giving them money!

 

[RobWin]

Yes I agree too about the 30% rule being made clearer. However, I would suggest it would only affect a tiny number of players who are wanting to bet their entire balance on roulette before they grind it out on slots....and these are the people we can thank for the WR and hoops we have to jump through these days. I cant see the average player being concerned about that term at all - it certainly wouldnt affect me. The term is not evil, and as I said its the fault of certain people , some who shall remain nameless, who look for every single loophole they can find to exploit what the rest of us are happy to enjoy.



Sorry but you lost me when you said this....are you serious or taking the mick??



So you think its OK for a casino to decide whether to pay you by how 'mad' you make them? Multiple accounts is against the rules almost everywhere so they are no different from anywhere else.....but the kind of BS excuses this lot have come up with over the years to avoid payment is enough to make you puke.

If you have any sense about you at all, for goodness sake do yourself a favour and stay away from Virtual and the other rogues. The only way to bring them down is to stop giving them money!

Even that is a feat within itself when we still have so many affiliates and affiliate sites out there willing to promote them and accept their money. We even have affiliates who boldly state that they no longer "promote" them and even say that they are rogue but still gladly take their affiliate money from them by keeping their affiliate accounts open there.
____
____

 

[oren1976]

Regarding the 30% rule, it gives the casino the power to abuse his own power, when you have such a rule you can easily abuse it and because they are humans they will abuse it against many many players who made a honest mistake and not as you mentioned, betting all in the roulette or building balance from all kind, I would say a player who played slots only and bet instead of 50 a spin 60 a spin and 50 is the max bet they won't pay him, this is the abuse I am talking about and I think they use this kind of term, otherwise why to hide it ?

Regarding Virtual group, they are way much better than Palace group.

They pay, they have better bonuses, when I say to make them mad does not mean multiple accounts , even if you open within the group many casinos and u play with bonuses only, being a pig without giving them a play without bonuses when such generous bonuses are being offered, yes they might not pay you, I am not to defend them, of course it is not right but the Palace group also not going to pay you, the only different is that they use their problematic terms of we reserve the right to do whatever we want.

Yes, I understand people might think I am drunk but Virtual are better than many casino groups including casinorewards and fortunelounge nowadays

 

[Nifty29]

Regarding the 30% rule, it gives the casino the power to abuse his own power, when you have such a rule you can easily abuse it and because they are humans they will abuse it against many many players who made a honest mistake and not as you mentioned, betting all in the roulette or building balance from all kind, I would say a player who played slots only and bet instead of 50 a spin 60 a spin and 50 is the max bet they won't pay him, this is the abuse I am talking about and I think they use this kind of term, otherwise why to hide it ?

Regarding Virtual group, they are way much better than Palace group.

They pay, they have better bonuses, when I say to make them mad does not mean multiple accounts , even if you open within the group many casinos and u play with bonuses only, being a pig without giving them a play without bonuses when such generous bonuses are being offered, yes they might not pay you, I am not to defend them, of course it is not right but the Palace group also not going to pay you, the only different is that they use their problematic terms of we reserve the right to do whatever we want.

Yes, I understand people might think I am drunk but Virtual are better than many casino groups including casinorewards and fortunelounge nowadays

IMO that is one of the scariest things Ive heard here in a while....but you are entitled to your opinion.

Just dont expect any sympathy the day they stop paying you when you win too much....and it will come.

 

[Bencuri]

This thread is getting interesting.

However I agree with Oren in the original idea about that such rules (especiall if they are only mentioned in the long, heavy text of the general terms) like only 30% of the bonus is allowed as max. bet is not very pleasing. For me personally, when I read such rules, it already means a 'STOP'. Royal Joker has this rule as well, and also 32 Red. (Because of this fact I don't play at 32 Red, I think this is a very unfavourable rule.) And when this is combined with other restrictions that Oren mentions, that really makes that casino who issues these rules ridiculous in my eyes. I usually read the terms, but hiding such rules in the general terms section is really odd indeed. And if you check, Spin palace mentions these in the general terms only:

'Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to their account until such time as the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met.'

I hardly see this kind of rule attached to the irregular play section anyway. I am sure that I would also not discover this kind of term, I think people usually don't expect these kind of rules mentioned in the general terms and conditions only. And in this sense this casino can really make players abusers.

Casinomesiter's expectations include this line in case of Accredited Casino evaluations:

'No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play. '

Such a practice that Spin Palace does can easily result in that. So in this sense I agree with Oren.

I never liked Prime casino either because of the strict rules on bonuses. Now I will surely not play at Prime knowing they also has this kind of rule. Thank to god I didn't fell in the trap, because I am sure I would also overlook it as well...

 

[SkBurner]

Regarding Virtual group, they are way much better than Palace group.

Yes, I understand people might think I am drunk but Virtual are better than many casino groups including casinorewards and fortunelounge nowadays

You must be smoking better stuff than me

 

[Jasminebed]

A "regular" slot player can get caught with a 30 percent rule. Many of us make small deposits ($20-50), and if we reach a decent bank roll might spin at $10 hoping for a big win, or spin it all on last bit, hoping for a comeback. I don't what the minimum deposit is at Palace group, but for some casinos it is $10 or less.

I think most players have hit that accidental MaxBet spin at one point or another.

It is good when players make each other aware of changes in terms and conditions. Knowledge is power.

 

[Nifty29]

A "regular" slot player can get caught with a 30 percent rule. Many of us make small deposits ($20-50), and if we reach a decent bank roll might spin at $10 hoping for a big win, or spin it all on last bit, hoping for a comeback. I don't what the minimum deposit is at Palace group, but for some casinos it is $10 or less.

I think most players have hit that accidental MaxBet spin at one point or another.

It is good when players make each other aware of changes in terms and conditions. Knowledge is power.

I think you will find that this term would only be implemented for large bets on games other than slots. I remember a rep stating as such here but I dont remember who or when. Someone who deposits $10-$50 and plays a $10 spin has nothing to worry about anyway its more about players trying to build a big bankroll straight off the bat than the average player.

'No player shall be involuntarily placed into a situation which breaches the terms and conditions during the course of play. '

In my experience Spin Palace do not add bonuses - they have to be physically claimed by the player. The only exception could be the signup bonus, but you would already know you are getting it on your first deposit.

 

[Jasminebed]

Well, I think that casinos CAN implement terms that exist. They might not choose to for established players, or for nominal wins. After all, the more we bet the more we lose.

But if a casino does not intend to enforce a rule, there is no need for it to be there.

It could be as simple as "Table Games" are subject to a maximum of 30 percent of original bankroll.

If a bonus allows table games, all the martingale and modified martigale players would be in trouble with such a rule. They are "regular" players too, just a different game and a different style.

 

[Nifty29]

It could be as simple as "Table Games" are subject to a maximum of 30 percent of original bankroll.

If a bonus allows table games, all the martingale and modified martigale players would be in trouble with such a rule. They are "regular" players too, just a different game and a different style.

Yes that would make more sense as I doubt it would actually be applied to slots play due to the large house edge.....probably just covering the bases. If they do want to have the rule available, it must be listed in the terms, even if they dont apply it.

The casinos probably dont want players using martingale systems etc with 'their' money so its possible the rule is there to cover those very situations.

 

[Jasminebed]

If all you want players to play on a bonus is slots, then make it a slots only bonus.

Casinos set their terms and their bonuses. Players that play by them are using bonuses, not abusing them.

If a casino feels that a patron is not "using bonuses in the spirt they are intended for" they are free to bonus ban that customer after payment of winnings.

Rules for bonuses should be easily visible in the bonus offer, not buried deep in Terms and Conditions that change from time to time without notice to customers.

 

[Nifty29]

Players that play by them are using bonuses, not abusing them

I 100% agree with that statement. On the other hand, those that break those terms should not be entitled to their winnings. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Bryan has stated many times that everyone is individually responsible for following the terms of a bonus, and as long as they do the winnings are legit. If you dont, then tough cookies.

Some of it is common sense as well. If you claim a slot coupon called "BIGSLOT" or "SLOTSRUS" or something and go off playing blackjack or roulette, you are asking for trouble IMO.

 

[oren1976]

palace group see this thread, can anybody there confirm the 30% rule would move to the promotion terms ?

Bryan Bailey Mentioned in the case of the 46,000 that no casino in the accredited list would not pay a player just for playing here and there blackjack after he won the slots jackpots, just by mistake and small hands and few hands of blackjack, I wish it is the case with the Palace group and this rule is not against a slots player but with advantage players only who try to build a balance before going to the slots, I doubt it.

Palace group should respond and shouldn't hide this rule, then it is better, not ok but better, because this rule will be breached by many many players, giving the casino the power to abuse this kind of tricky rule

But I do agree a term is a term but put it at the promotion section and not general rules and at the end of the general rules not even at the beginning

 

[KasinoKing]

Bryan Bailey Mentioned in the case of the 46,000 that no casino in the accredited list would not pay a player just for playing here and there blackjack after he won the slots jackpots, just by mistake and small hands and few hands of blackjack...

I think you should read that thread again; the player played Blackjack BEFORE winning on the slot.
Not that it really matters that much; under the terms of the bonus he was using, he was not allowed to play any blackjack at any time during the wagering.

KK

 

[oren1976]

Yes, this is why Brian took the casino side, I am just saying that Brian said that if the player would have played the Blackjack by mistake not as a game to feed the slots he would have helped him, or maybe the casino at the first place would pay him knowing he made a mistake that didn't affect the winnings he made at slots at all.

Of course he breached the terms in both cases, but think about it if he played the blackjack after the slots winnings, does it make any change to the balance, if yes it means he wins less because blackjack is a game you are losing a bit, so why not to help him, or why not to pay him ?

He played blackjack to save himself from reaching zero and then hit the slots, this is why the term is there, they have the right not to pay.

I am saying that by hiding the 30% term at the end of general terms and condition, this shouldn't be and it should be changed, especially when they have many casinos now in their group.

Player should know about this rule. some players want to save their balance sometimes, they are not pro, they will go to table games to try to save their balance because the slots machine is just taking due to the high variance and house edge and then Palace group are going to use this term from general terms, not nice , not acceptible

If it was there only against table game players then the term should mention that.

 

[Nifty29]

Hey Oren.....have you ever posted here before (e.g. with another username in the past)? You seem to know a lot about how online casinos work for a newb.....just curious thats all.

I knew another Oren once on another forum and Im sure here as well.

 

[oren1976]

I have been playing for long time online but never had a user at casinomeister as far as I remember

 

[vinylweatherman]

Eh, I thought Prime was no longer part of the Palace Group?
Prime is on the 'no can do' list here, while the Palace Group casino's are all accredited, right?
So whats that BS of not beeing elegible to claim a bonus at both?

As far as I know, Prime has NEVER been PART OF the Palace Group, but Palace Group were asked to provide support and payment services under contract to Prime's owners. With this in mind, there should be NO rules connecting play & bonuses at Prime with those at any casino OWNED by the Palace Group. Given also that Prime is on the "no can do" list, there has to be a worry that Palace Group themselves may decide to become "no can do" themselves. This would get them removed from the accredited list. KK thinks this may be a typo though, so this should be cleared up between Bryan and Palace Group as to whether Palace Group casinos will still agree to PAB ajudication, and to meet the standards of accreditation. Prime themselves asked to be removed from the accredited section, and later became a full blown "no can do", without many of us noticing. I only noticed when I reported behaviour "not becoming of an accredited casino" to Bryan from Prime (they tried the "hard sell" to get me to reverse a few withdrawals).

Something "interesting" also happened to me last year.

1) BIG win at Prime 6K+, but on SLOTS.

2) Sudden "bonus ban" followed at Ruby Fortune, even though I was some 10K+ DOWN there, and was at a high VIP level, with 2 regular offers a week, sometimes three.

3) A later withdrawal for 500 from Prime was stalled with the excuse "routine eCogra account verification procedure" - Bollocks to that! they just paid me 6K without protest, but I DID (yet again) REFUSE their "special offer" to reverse my withdrawal for 500.

Taken together, it DOES look as though my play at Prime is affecting my "status" at the "proper" Palace Group casinos, and vice versa.

As for Christmas, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from Ruby Fortune, which has previously been UNHEARD OF in all the time I have played there.

The business of my final 500 withdrawal at Prime being "routinely investigated" for nearly 2 WEEKS before they paid has put me off the Palace Group altogether, since there has NEVER been any explanation of WHY there was this "investigation", rather than paying the 500 just as happily as they paid the 6K.
Despite the lack of explanation, the subsequent drying up of ALL my Palace Group promotions indicates they were unhappy in some way with my account, and that I might suffer further "problems" at a later time.

It may be that I have WON overall at Palace Group, AND at Prime, being down only at Ruby Fortune, and a little down on relatively little play at Mummy's Gold and Jackpots in a Flash.

 

[oren1976]

Prime and Palace group are connected. There is no doubt about it. Believing anything else is being naive .

The main problem I see with them is the fact they hide a 30% max bet rule in the general terms. I remember I read in one forum that a player only win that was confiscated was in Cabaret Club due to breaching of this rule.

My assumption, a lot of money is being confiscating using this shady rule, put it at the promotion section.

If they lie or not about the connected to Prime why is it important ? do you think if Prime made a wrong decision in the past it makes him in a better or less position that Palace group, they have the same terms anyway so whats the difference ?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Prime and Palace group are connected. There is no doubt about it. Believing anything else is being naive .

The main problem I see with them is the fact they hide a 30% max bet rule in the general terms. I remember I read in one forum that a player only win that was confiscated was in Cabaret Club due to breaching of this rule.

My assumption, a lot of money is being confiscating using this shady rule, put it at the promotion section.

If they lie or not about the connected to Prime why is it important ? do you think if Prime made a wrong decision in the past it makes him in a better or less position that Palace group, they have the same terms anyway so whats the difference ?

The difference is that Palace Group are in the accredited section. They got a fair bit of stick when they implemented this rule in an unfair manner. They had to redraft the rule, and this produced the 30% definition. Unfortunately, it is in the general terms, but not in the promotional terms, so it is easy to miss, AND fall foul of if you get a good run from your bonus, and quite innocently start raising your bets as your balance increases. You could have a 10,000 win, and think it reasonable to then be betting 100 a pop, but have it all confiscated because in the beginning your bonus was only 100, and the rule allows only for a max bet of 30.

Prime, on the other hand, asked to be removed altogether from Casinomeister, and more recently opted out of the PAB resolution process. If Prime and Palace Group ARE from the same owner, then it casts doubt on whether Palace Group are still committed to the Casinomeister Accreditation and PAB service. So far, it seems Palace Group ARE still committed to Casinomeister, whilst Prime are not, despite the fact that Palace Group staff deal with both.

 

[The Dude]

Has anyone here bothered to PM the casino rep - as per the instructions when posting complaints?
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

This would make my life a whole lot easier. Here we have a week's worth of complaining but nothing is being done about it.

If this term goes against the standards that are required to be listed as an Accredited Casino, then these terms need to be changed. Simple as that.

If you want to get something done, you need to do something about it instead of just talking about it.

The Palace Group and Prime casino share the same support center as far as I know. As least they used to the last time I checked.

 

[oren1976]

Casinomeister is right, I wrote this thread full of anger at Palace group.

The anger came from a small post in a forum about a player who just mentioned his 1 and only winnings that were ever confiscated were at Cabaret club for breaching this rule of 30% max bet

He did nothing about that and accepted their decision. I was not familiar with the case and I couldn't remember the new cabaret had this rule. I check and could find it only at the general terms this made me mad.

I will PM Palace group and as I mentioned before the problem I have with them is playing with a bonus when such important term is being hidden even when you play only slots

 

[Palace Group]

Good day,
It is really a pity that this complaint took a week before a pm was sent to me.
I cannot assist you with any complaint unless you bring it to my attention.
Unfortunately I cannot check every string on CasinoMeister to see if there is a complaint against The Palace Group within the string and hence the previous strings are the result.

Now that oren1976 has sent me a pm, I will be looking into this.

I note that reference to confiscations of huge amounts have also been mentioned - oddly enough I have no complaints about these or knowledge of such confiscations.

To anyone who reads this string, please do not frustrate yourself by complaining without affording us the opportunity to assist you.

Thank you to all in this string for your comments.

Kind Regards
The Palace Group

 

[The Dude]

...
I will PM Palace group and as I mentioned before the problem I have with them is playing with a bonus when such important term is being hidden even when you play only slots

Hi Oren - the Casino Rep is still waiting for you to PM him with your details. Please do. Thanks!

 

[oren1976]

I sent an email to Palace group and they replied they are going to change it in the next couple of days.

My feeling, it has nothing to do with my email but Casinomeister already explained them and pulled pressure f them to put the 30% term in the promotion terms.

 

[Palace Group]

Good Afternoon,

After going through all the promotions sent out during the past few months I have established that only one recent Bonus offer promotion was sent out without the 30% clause included.
The error occurred due to an old template being used which did not include the clause, but did include the link to the full T's and C's.

The error has been identified and our promotions will display the full 30% clause.

I trust that this explanation is met with approval.

Once again, Thank you to all those who commented in this string.

Kind Regards
The Palace Group

 

[oren1976]

I could see they did change the promotion terms to show the 30% rule which is a good thing

 

[ergopro]

The strange thing is that if you go thru Finnish landing page of Spin Palace and click on the terms for the 100% match, the 30% clause #13 isn't there.

Is a Finnish player supposed to change the landing page to English first and then dig in to find all the necessary small print? Most new casino players aren't experienced enough to do that.

Still they have forfeited winnings for at least two Finnish players it seems of what I read in a Finnish poker forum because of that 30% clause.
Just thought I'd ask.

One is from

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

where you go thru the Finnish panding page and the 30% clause isn't there.

The other is when going thru the UK page

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

and the 30% clause is there.

 

[nitro]

Is a Finnish player supposed to change the landing page to English first and then dig in to find all the necessary small print? Most new casino players aren't experienced enough to do that.

The 4 finnish gamblers who aren't bonus w*ores don't play in spin palace so it shouldn't matter.

 

[ergopro]

And your point was?
Was just curious how things are handled in this kinda disparencies?

 

[Pinababy69]

The strange thing is that if you go thru Finnish landing page of Spin Palace and click on the terms for the 100% match, the 30% clause #13 isn't there.

Is a Finnish player supposed to change the landing page to English first and then dig in to find all the necessary small print? Most new casino players aren't experienced enough to do that.

Still they have forfeited winnings for at least two Finnish players it seems of what I read in a Finnish poker forum because of that 30% clause.
Just thought I'd ask.

One is from

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

where you go thru the Finnish panding page and the 30% clause isn't there.

The other is when going thru the UK page

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

and the 30% clause is there.

Ergo, can you send the Palace Group rep a PM and make him aware of that, so that they can get it changed? Sloppy, but probably nothing more than an oversight, that should be corrected.

The 4 finnish gamblers who aren't bonus w*ores don't play in spin palace so it shouldn't matter.

Is a comment like that really necessary?

 

[ergopro]

Ergo, can you send the Palace Group rep a PM and make him aware of that, so that they can get it changed? Sloppy, but probably nothing more than an oversight, that should be corrected.

Will do. Thanks.